pu fee st 
LIBRARY a 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
GIFT OF y 
Mrs. SARAH Ρ. WALSWORTH. 
Received October, 1894. 
Accessions NIK L202 Class No. ὦ: 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
με ἢ 2007 with funding from 


Microsoft Corporation 


Ἷ ea Sly oe 
ae ὦ sat Agar ce: 


rae Ἢ 
ACT, bs Sat 4 ἐτοι τὰς 
Ane a me : 


 ¥HATAABMOD 


” ue 


ARTs 


regan ἂν ἢ 


ed 
’ pyr. 


ee CCR mt hae: 


ΠΊΩΝ τὴν ΡΟ te 


τον ἔχοϑϑιεις 


COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


9 FZ 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


BY 
MOSES STUART, 
Late Prof. of Sacred Literature in the Theol. Sem. at Andover. 


PUBLISHED BY WARREN F. DRAPER. 
1854. 


Sto} 


. 


Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1832, by 
MOSES STUART, 
in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 


PREFACE ΤῸ THE FIRST EDITION. 


I pusiisn to the world the result of my labours upon the Epistle to the 
Romans with unfeigned diffidence, and with a trembling sense of the respon- 
sibility which I incur by so doing. This epistle has been the grand arena, if 
I may so express myself, on which theological combatants have been contending 
ever since the third century, and perhaps still earlier. The turn which the 
apostle James has given to his discussion respecting justification, makes it 
probable that even in his time there were some who abused the words of 
Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, concerning the doctrine of ‘justification 
by faith without the deeds of law.’ If so, then it would seem that there has 
been no period since this epistle was written, in which its meaning has not 
been more or less a subject of contest. 

How could this be otherwise, since it discusses the highest and most difficult 
of all the doctrines which pertain to the Christian system? Men must be 
more alike in their early education, their illumination, their habits of reason- 
ing, and their theological convictions, than they have hitherto been, and they 
must love God and each other better than they have ever yet done, not to 
differ in their interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans. It strikes at the 
root of all human pride and vain-glory ; it aims even a deadly blow: And 
where a passionate attachment to these is rankling in the breast, how is it 
possible that this epistle should meet with a welcome reception, and the 
authority of its simple and obvious meaning be admitted? Even where the 
remains of such an attachment are still lurking within, and only now and then 
developing themselves, because the heart is in some measure uusanctified, 
there we cannot expect to find an unprejudiced interpretation of the writin 
in question. An epistle which is, as it were, the very Confession of Fait. 
that a true Christian is to make, must needs receive an interpretation more 
or less forced, on the part of all who are influenced by pride, by passion, by 
_ prejudice, by ill-directed early instruction, or by ignorance. 

For these reasons, an interpreter of this epistle must expect opposition at 
the present day, let his views be what they may. Be he Calvinist, Arminian, 
Pelagian, Antinomian, Socinian, or of any other sect, it is in vain for him to 
think of escape. Paulis a writer too formidable to be acknowledged as an 
opponent. Hence, when he isinterpreted so that the views of one party in any 
particular point seem to be favoured, other parties are very apt to unite in 
condemning the interpretation. Nothing will satisfy them but to have such 
a writer explained as siding with them. Alas, then, for the interpreter ! 
While he meets, perhaps, with the approbation of a few, he must of course 
expect the vehement dissent of many. He must make up his mind, therefore, 
before he publishes, to bear with all this, and to bear with it patiently and 
firmly; or else he had better abstain from publishing. It may appear to him 
as a very undesirable remuneration for painful and long-protracted labours ; 
butit is one which others have been obliged to receive, and which he also must 
expect. The only offset for 411 the pains which this may occasion him, must 
be the hope, that his labours after all may do some geod; and that, if they do 
not themselves on the whole directly advance the cause of truth, they may at 


lV PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


least be the means of exciting others to make inquiries, which will result in 
the accomplishment of such an end. 

For myself, I do not profess to be free from all prejudices of education and 
all attachment to system, in such a degree as to make it certain that my views 
may not sometimes be affected by them. Nor do I profess to be so illuminated 
in respect to divine things, and so skilled in the original language and criti- 
cism of the New Testament, as to be certain that all my conclusions respecting 
the meaning of the epistle before us are correct. Homo sum, et nihil humani 
a me alienum puto. When, therefore, I speak in the indicative mood, and 
say that this means thus and so, the reader will not understand that any thing 
more is intended, than that this is true in my opinion. To be always dealing 
in the conditional mood, and filling one’s pages with Hf perhaps, probably, 
possibly, may tt not, can it not, &e., &c., would be intolerable in such a writing 
as a commentary. Besides, it would represent the author himself as in a 
perpetual state of doubt or uncertainty. This I cannot truly say of myself. 
My convictions, for the most part, have become definite and full in respect to 
far the greater portion of the Epistle tothe Romans. ‘To represent them other- 
wise, would be to misrepresent them. 

But this does not imply that I am insensible to the weakness of human 
nature, or tomy exposednesstoerr. If I have any knowledge of my own heart, 
it is very far from such insensibility. After all, however, a man who is liable 
to err, may form opinions, and may be satisfied that they are correct. This 
all men do, and must do; and all which can be properly demanded of them is, 
that they should hold themselves open to conviction, whenever adequate rea- 
sons are offered to convince them of their errors. 

In this position, I trust and believe, do I hold myself, as to the opinions 
advanced in the interpretations that follow. I can say truly, that there are 
no opinions advanced here, which have been hastily taken up. I have been 
long engaged in the exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, and have studied 
it much more than any other part of the Bible. I have taken an extensive 
range in consulting commentators ancient and modern, as well as exegesis 
contained in theological essays and systems. This, however, I mention for 
one purpose, and one only, viz., to show that I have not come lightly to the 
responsible task of writing and publishing a commentary on the epistle under 
consideration ; and that the opinions, therefore, which are advanced in it, are 
not the offspring of mere education or hasty conjecture. 

Dissent, and probably contradiction, are almost of course to be expected. 
I may be permitted, however, respectfully to solicit those who may see fit to 
publish any thing of this nature, that they would investigate thoroughly, before 
they condemn, what I have said. When they have so done, I shall value their 
opinion, however it may differ from my own. Aiming, as I trust I do, at the 
development of truth, I shall rejoice to find any of my errors corrected (for 
errors, no doubt, there are in my work); and, if the correction be made in the 
spirit of love and Christian friendship, so much the more acceptable will it be. 
If it be made in a different spirit, and is still a real correction, I would fain 
hope for magnanimity enough to say: Fas est ab hoste doceri. 

rom some of those who have never deeply studied the Epistle to the 
Seog and who have a none τ and Aree snc exegesis which answers 
their purposes in an a priori way, I may pro expect, in regard to somé 
things, vehement and on ualified Sieh πο χέει τὸ can handy assert 
the right of demanding that my views should be accommodated to theirs; 
since we proceed in our respective interpretations, on grounds so exceedingly 
diverse. I hope, therefore, that such will excuse me from any obligation to 
contend with their exegesis. 

To those who may differ from me, after thorough research, I can only say : 
‘The field is open; as open for you as forme. You have the same right to 
publish your thoughts to the world, as I have to publish mine; and as gooda 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Vv 
right to defend your views, asI have to proffer mine. The result of doing this, 
if done with deep, attentive, protracted consideration, and in the spirit of kind- 
ness, cannot be otherwise than favourable to the interests of truth. I may not 
live to vindicate my own views where just, or to abandon the errors of which 
you might convince me; but others will live, who will do the one or the other 
for me, should it become necessary. The truth, at last, must and will prevail.’ 

I confess, frankly, that I do not expect for this book the favour of such as 
are truly sectarians. I have written it, so far as in my power, without any 
regard to sect or name. Doubtless my efforts have been imperfect ; but so far 
as in me lay, the one only and simple inquiry with me has been: What did 
Paul mean to teach? What Calvin, or Augustine, or Edwards, or Arminius, 

cor Grotius, or any other theologian or commentator has taught or said, has 
been with me only secondary and subordinate. No one is farther from disre- 
spect to the great and good than myself; but when explaining the Bible, to 
call no man master, and to bow to no system as such, are sacred principles with 
me. If I have not always adhered to them, it results from my imperfection; 
not from any consciousand allowed design. Of course, all partymen in theology 
will probably find some things in the following pages with which they will 
not agree. How can it be otherwise? I have, to the utmost of my power, 
left their systems out of sight, and made it my constant and only effort, to 
follow simply the way in which the apostle seems to lead me. Such a course 
will be estimated differently from what it now is, when less attachment to 
system and party in theology, and more of simple-hearted love of truth, just 
as it stands in the Scripture, shall prevail in the churches. 

My views of Rom. v. 12—19, of vii. 5—25, and of viii. 28, seq., will no doubt 
be controverted. I have anticipated this; for who can help knowing that these 
passages have for time immemorial been the great πρόσκομμα καὶ σκάνδαλον of 
theology? To hazard an interpretation here, and not to accompany it with 
reasons, would be justly deemed presumptuous. ‘To give reasons, demands at 
least the appearance of theologizing. Whatever of this exists in the Commen- 
tary or the Excursus, is, 1 may say, involuntary on my part. It is inserted 
only to guard against being misunderstood, or else to support the interpreta- 
tion which I have given. In order to do this, it is now and then necessary 
to show that a different interpretation is replete with difficulties, some of which 
are insurmountable. 

Those who are disposed to find fault with what they may call my theological 
discussions,—brief and seldom as they are,—would probably not make any 
objections to such discussions, had the result of them been accordant with their 
own views, or with those of the authors whom they highly esteem. But how 
can I be under obligation, to make wishes of this nature a rule to guide my 
interpretations, or my explanation and defence of them? I know of no precept 
in Theory, nor any obligation from usage, which hinders an interpreter from 
reasoning upon the doctrines which the Scriptures appear to teach, or which 
they have been represented as teaching. How can it be one’s duty not to guard 
against the misrepresentation of his own views in respect to the meaning of 
Scripture, and not to defend those views by producing the arguments which 
appear to justify them? 

Whatever the following pages contain, either of truth or error, they have 
been written under no ordinary sense of responsibility. The epistle itself must 
needs create such a feeling in the breast of every reflecting man, who under- 
takes to comment upon it; and, in addition to this, I have been repeatedly 
interrupted in my labours by my state of health ; and this under circumstances 
which rendered it not improbable, that Ishould not live to see the completion 
of my work. The day of my account cannot be far distant; and in view of it, 
can I publish to the world what I do not seriously regard as being true? Can 
party purposes have any strong attractions for a man in such a condition? [ 

ope and trust I can say, that the tribunal before which this and all other 


vl é PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


works are to be finally judged, appears to me a matter of immeasurably higher 
interest than all the praise or blame which mem can bestow. 

May that omniscient and merciful Being, the God of love and truth, forgive 
whatever of error may be in this book; and accept and bless to the good of 
his church, whatever of truth is explained or defended! 

I should be ungratefulif I should omit to mention my special obligations 
to some of the interpreters, who have laboured to explain the Epistle to the 
Romans. Calvin, Grotius, J. A. Turretin, Flatt, and Tholuck have been my 
favourite authors ; although I have by no means confined my reading to these. 
Most of all am I indebted to the excellent book of Tholuck on this epistle. In 
particular, I have often relied on him in my statements with respect to the 
opinions of other commentators, whom I had not at hand, or whom 1 did not 
think it important to consult myself, because I confided in his account of their 
views. But in all cases, where any considerable importance was attached to 
the opinion of this or that individual, and where it was in my power to con- 
sult, I have consulted for myself. Prof. Tholuck will easily perceive, also, if 
the following sheets should pass under his eye, that I am indebted to him for 
various classical quotations and allusions, and also for not a few valuable 
philological remarks, as well as views of the reasoning and argumentation of 
the apostle. He has my most unfeigned thanks for all the aid which his 
excellent work has afforded me. 

He will also perceive that in some places I differ from him; I do this, as I 
trust, in the spirit of kindness and brotherly love. When I do differ, I always 

ive my reasons for it. As I fully believe that his only aim is to come to the 

nowledge and development of truth, so I trust he will put a candid estimate 
on the full and frank expression of my own views, where they differ from his. 
May our respective labours and inquiries help to promote the great object 
which we both have in view! 

Throughout, I have adopted and expressed no views or opinions without 
study; and none upon the authority of others. Those who read the following 
pages will perceive, I apprehend, that while I have not neglected the study of 
other writers, I have not omitted to study and think for myself. In this way 
only can any advance be hoped for, in the all-important work of interpreting 
the Bible. 

I have only to add, that the present work is designed, in a special manner, 
for beginners in the study of interpretation; and this fact will account for the 
occasional repetitions and particularity of illustration, which the reader will 
not unfrequently meet with, in his perusal of this volume. If all the young 
men in our country, who repair to theological Seminaries, or who devote 
themselves in any way to the study of sacred criticism, had been trained in 
early life to the study of the classics, on such grounds as are adopted in the Gym- 
nasia of Europe, many a minute remark might be spared which is now made. 
The reader who finds some things which are superfluous for himself, when he 
calls this to mind, will grant me pardon for being minute and particular. 
Commentary written in a general way, leaves only a general and indistinct 
impression. It is not my aim to accomplish merely such an end. 

e more practised Se phe will not, for the most part, be displeased 
with being frequently reminded of oe in grammar and criticism, which 
are in themselves important, and which need, in our biblical studies, to be kept 
constantly before the mind.* 


M. STUART. 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, ey 
Sept., 1832. 


* I have omitted a short paragraph here, which is not apposite to the present edition. 


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


Sryce the publication of the first edition of this Commentary, several works 
have appeared, some of which are adapted to afford aid of no inconsiderable 
importance. New editions of Usteri’s Creed of Paul (Lehrbegriff Pauli), with 
the commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans by Beneke, Glockler, Ruckert, 
and Reiche, have been published in Germany; and, in our own country, the 
Rev. A. Barnes of Philadelphia has also published a brief but very compre- 
hensive and valuable work on the same epistle. All of these, with the excep- 
tion of Ruckert, which has not come to hand, have been consulted by me in 
preparing the present edition. The work of Reiche (in two octavos) is ex- 
ceedingly copious. I have been aided in some respects by his philology; for 
his theology is any thing but consistent and evangelical. His book in various 
respects is an able one; but his method is confused, and his manner often 
tedious. Yet no commentator on this epistle should now choose to dispense 
with the use of him. I thank him sincerely for the valuable hints that he has 
given me, of which I have omitted no opportunity to avail myself. 

The works of Beneke and Gléckler are short. The first holds to the pre- 
existence of human souls, and accounts for the present degradation of men, on 
the ground of sin in a previous state; the second appears to be a moderate 
Pantheist of the recent school, and not unfrequently exhibits a portion of their 
mysticism. Yet both of these writers are in the main sensible men, and 
appear to possess serious and evangelical feelings. I have obtained some 
hints from each, which I consider as of value. 

From Usteri’s new edition I have also taken some hints. From Mr. Barnes’ 
work I have also derived aid; and especially have I been often cheered on my 
way, by finding the result of his investigations to tally so well with my own. 

I have altered, and I hope amended, so many passages in this edition, that 
to specify them all is out of question. I have bestowed on it scarcely less 
labour than the first writing cost me. On many places, indeed I may say on 
all, which I have not materially altered, I have bestowed much study in order - 
to satisfy myself that they should remain unchanged. Many additions have 
been made to the work. Ifthe reader wishes to know the nature of them, he 
may compare notes on Chap. IV., V., and the Excursus appended, with those 
of the first edition. I have spared no effort that I could bestow, to make my 
work more deserving than before of public approbation ; and in particular I 
have laboured to do this, as it respects the grammatical part of the commen- 
tary and the explanation of the particles. 

I hesitated for a time whether I should not abridge the Excursus on Rom. v. 
12—19, instead of enlarging themas Ihave nowdone. Myreason for this hesita- 
tion was, that I had written in part an examination of the subject of Original Sin, 
and hoped to be able to illustrate and fortify some of the views which I had 
before advanced, to more advantage in a separate Essay, than could be done 
in Excursus where one is hedged in on every side through want of room. But 
as the plan of my Essay requires, in order to complete it, so wide an extent of 
reading as to both ancient and modern writings, [ cannot well predict when 
I may be able to complete it, under such numerous and pressing duties as lie 


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


upon me. I have therefore retained so much of my former Excursus on chap. 
v. as my plan of corrections would permit, and made many additions to them ; 
some of which will at least serve to make the views I really entertain more 
explicit, and, as I would hope, better understood. That there is some want of 
unity of plan, and some repetition in the Excursus, is certainly apparent: but 
this is owing to causes that were beyond my control, and which it would bx 

useless for me to particularize in this place. 

I offer no apology for the changes and corrections that I have made in this 
edition of my commentary; being fully satisfied, that in a work of such an 
extent as the present, and embracing such a great variety of topics, if its author 
does not find reason in a republication to change and correct some of his first 
views, it is merely because he has not continued to study and investigate. For 
myself, I am so far from being satisfied with my first efforts, that they only 
serve to stimulate me to new labours of investigation, in order more fully to as- 
certain whether they will abide a thorough scrutiny. Experience has taught me, 
that first views on subjects so difficult as some of those which the Epistle to the 
Romans discusses, are not always the safest. If there be any whose first im- 
pressions are always and only right, and who find no reason to alter and amend, 
they will not sympathize with these remarks; but others who, like myself, 
are obliged to investigate a second time, and review and amend, will enter 
fully into the meaning of what I say. 

I have scarcely referred in any part of my book, even in my own mind, to 
any of the criticisms that have been made upon it in periodicals, I do not 
wish to appear as a polemic, in such a work as this. Those who have kindly 
given their approbation to the first edition of the work, will not complain of 
my course; and those who have attacked it with earnestness, ought not to 
complain. By this latter class I have been theologically and not philologically 
reviewed; and that, at times, evidently without the writers having read any 
thing more than some of the Excursus with which they disagreed. In a few 
instances, the style and manner of attack has been such as manifestly to 
preclude all attempt at reply; in some others, the matter contained in the 
criticisms has not seemed to me to present any thing but the most common 
suggestions, of every day’s polemic theology; and to repeat and confute this, 
would be agere actum. But, even if matter and manner might seem to demand 
or admit a reply, it would be unwise to make a commentary the scene of battle- 
ground between contending parties. I have spoken without restraint my own. 
sentiments; but I have not intended to speak them as a polemic. 

The first edition of this work was disposed of within so short a time, that 
my other engagements did not permit me sooner to accomplish my preparations 
for a second edition. I could not prepare, moreover, in a way consistent with 
the plan which I had adopted, until I had obtained the recent commentaries 
on the 2 to the Romans, which have appeared since my first edition was 
published, Even now, several writers on this epistle are lingering in the press, 
whose works I should be glad to possess, but for which I adn not think it 
my duty any longer to wait. Should I live to hear a call for another edition, 
I shall have my eye upon them, and shall not fail to draw from them all that 
I can which is appropriate to my object. In the mean time, I would hope that 
the present edition may be useful to suchas are desirous of critically studying 
the Epistle to the Romans. 


M. STUART. 
Anpoven; Turon. Seminary, Sept, 1, 1835. 


INTRODUCTION 


TO 


\ 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


§ 1. Of the first planting of the church at Rome. 


History affords no certain evidence respecting the individual who 
first preached the gospel at Rome. The Romish church indeed main- 
tain, that Peter was the founder of the first Christian community 
in that city. Irenzeus (adv. Hereses III. 1), and Eusebius (Chron. 
ad. ann. 2 Claudii), are the witnesses to whom the appeal is parti- 
cularly made, in order to confirm this opinion. But although these 
Fathers had undoubtedly heard such a tradition, and (as it appears 
by the passages above cited) gave credit to it, yet there is substantial 
reason for doubting the correctness of it. The statement of Euse- 
bius implies, that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius’ 
reign, ὃ, 6... A.D.43* Jerome states, that Peter came to Rome in 
the second year of Claudius’ reign, in order to counteract the in- 
fluence of Simon Magus there; and that he resided in that city, and 
held the office of a bishop in it, for twenty-five years, 7. ¢., until the 
last year of Nero’s reign, in which he suffered martyrdom; De Viris 
illustr. c. I. But neither Eusebius, nor any of the most ancient 
ecclesiastical writers, make mention of such a period. Whence 
Jerome obtained information respecting it, he does not tell us; and 
some leading critics among the Roman Catholics, e. g., Valesius, 
Pagi, Baluzius, and others, give no credit to this part of his nar- 
ration. 

That Peter visited Rome at some period of his life, before the 
close of Nero’s reign, cannot well be doubted. Origen (in Euseb. 
Hist Eec. ILI. 1), and Dionysius of Corinth (flor. ὁ. ann. 117), as 
related by Eusebius (11. 25), testify to this in such a manner that it 
cannot well be rejected, without giving up the credibility of all an- 
cient historical testimony of the like nature. Caius, a presbyter, at Ὁ 


"Ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆρ Κλαυδίου βασιλείας, sc, anno sccundo; Euseb, Ecc. Hist, IL, 14, 


10 ᾿ INTRODUCTION TO THE 


the commencement of the third century, mentions that he saw at 
Rome the graves of Paul and Peter; Euseb. Hist. Ecc. 11, 25. The 
doubts of many Protestants relative to the fact that Peter visited 
Rome, and the assertions of Salmasius, Spanheim, and others, that 
this could not have been the case, appear to be without any solid 
foundation. 

But that Peter did not go to Rome as bishop in the second year 
of Claudius’ reign, nor indeed before the Epistle of Paul to the Ro- 
mans was written, seems to be nearly or quite certain. (1) In Acts 
xii. 3, 4, we find an account of Peter’s being imprisoned by Herod 
Agrippa, in the last year of this king’s reign (comp. v. 23); and this 
year synchronizes with the fourth year of Claudius. Ofcourse Peter 
was at Jerusalem, not at Rome, after the period when Jerome and 
Eusebius affirm that he went to Rome and resided there. (2) We find 
Peter at Jerusalem in the ninth (some say eleventh) year of Claudius ; 
he being present at the council there, Acts xv. 6, seq. (3) Nothing 
is said in the book of Acts, or in the New Testament, respecting 
Peter’s visiting Rome; and if he had done so, before the time at 
which the history in the book of Acts terminates, we can hardly 
suppose so important an occurrence would have escaped the notice 
of Luke. (4) Paul came as a prisoner to Rome, in the 7th year of 
Nero’s reign, 7. e., A.D. 60 (but some say in 62 or 63); on which 
occasion there is no mention, and there seems to have been among 
the Jews of that city no knowledge, of Peter, Acts xxviii. 17, seq. (5) 
Could Paul have addressed the Romans as he did in his epistle, if 
he had recognised them as disciples of Peter? Could he have 
written his whole epistle without once adverting to this fact? (6) 
If Peter was at Rome when Paul wrote this epistle, how could the 
latter fail to send a salutation to him as well as to others? 

So late, then, as A.D. 57 or 58, when the Epistle to the Romans 
was probably written, it seems to be nearly certain that Peter had 
not beenat Rome. The flourishing and apparently numerous church 
there, must therefore have been gathered by some other person than 
Peter. 

But who was this person? A question that cannot be answered 
with any certainty; although we may arrive at some probabilities 
respecting it. In the salutations which Paul sends to the church at 
Rome, he mentions (xvi. 7) Andronicus and Junias, as having been 
his fellow-prisoners, and as ἐπίσημοι iv τοῖς ἀποστόλοιρ, they having 
become Christians earlier than himself. What hinders the suppo- 
sition, that one or bothof these men, perhaps converts cn the notable 
day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 10), and of high repute among the apostles 
themselves, may have first spread the knowledge of the gospel in the 
metropolis of the Roman Empire, of which they were inhabitants, 
or in which they were at least residents? Rufus, also, a distinguished 
Christian, whose mother had shown much kindness to Paul (Rom. 


c 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 11 


xvi. 13), may have been one of the founders, or at least fosterers, of 
the Roman church; possibly the same Rufus, whose father (a native 
of Cyrene) was compelled to bear the cross of Jesus, when on his 
way to Calvary, Mark xv. 21. Others, moreover, who are men- 
tioned in Rom. xvi., may have been, and probably were, contributors 
to the work of establishing or building up the church at Rome. At 
all events, there was opportunity for a very early establishment of it; 
inasmuch as we find persons from this city present at Jerusalem on 
the day of Pentecost, Acts ii. 10. We know, also, that Christians 
were scattered abroad, when the persecution of Stephen occurred; at 
first in Judea and Samaria, Acts viii. 1; afterwards to more distant 
regions, Acts xi. 19; and what hinders us from supposing that some 
of them may have come to Rome itself, preaching the gospel? 

That the church at Rome was early planted, seems probable from 
the fame which it had acquired throughout the Christian world (Rom. 
i, 8; xvi. 19), when Paul wrote his epistle. That the persons con- 
cerned in the establishment of it were Paul’s particular friends and 
acquaintances, with whom he had met and conferred, while preach- 
ing in Asia or in Greece, appears very plain from the manner of the 
salutations in chap. xvi. 8--16. In respect to Aquila and Priscilla, 
we have a definite knowledge, from Acts xvii. 1—3, 18, 26, and 
from what is said in Rom. xvi. ὃ, 4. Others are called the kinsmen 
(συγγενεῖς) of Paul, viz. Andronicus and Junias, ver. 7; Herodion, 
ver. 11. Others again are called dyaanroi, συνεργοί, ἐκλεκτοί κοπι- 
ὥντες ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ, &e. Moreover, the manner in which Paul ad- 
dresses the church of Rome, 7. 6.) the plain, familiar, authoritative 
tone of the letter, shows that he considered himself as addressing 
those who were in effect his own disciples, or, in other words, such 
as had probably been converted to Christianity under the preaching 
of his own particular friends and spiritual children. Hence, too, tho 
frequent expressions of strong affection for the church at Rome, and 
of strong sympathy with them. | 

On the whole, although we have no definite history of the planting 
of the church at Rome (excepting the one given by Jerome, which 
is not entitled to credit), yet we may consider it as quite probable, 
that some of the persons named in the salutation (xvi. 3—16) were 
entitled to the honour of having founded a church in the metropolis 
of the Roman empire. 


2. Of the constituent parts of the church at Rome. 


Nothing can be clearer, than that a considerable portion of the 
church at Rome consisted of Jewish converts; ii. 17—iii, 19; iv. 1, 
12, vii. 1—4, and chapters ix.—xi. Nor is there any serious diffi- 
culty of a historical nature, in making out the probability of this. 
When Pompey overran Judea with a conquering army, about 63 years 


13 ε INTRODUCTION TO THE 


before the Christian era, he caused many captive Jews to be sent to 
Rome. ‘There they were sold into slavery, as was usual in respect 
to captives taken in war. But their persevering and unconquerable 
determination to observe the Sabbath, and to practise many of the 
Levitical rites and customs, gave their Roman masters so much 
trouble, that they chose to liberate them rather than to keep them. 
As there was a large body of persons so liberated, the government 
assigned them a place opposite Rome, across the Tiber, where they 
built a town which was principally inhabited by Jews. Here Philo 
found them, just before Paul’s time; Legat. ad Caium. p. 1014, ed. 
Frankf. The reader who wishes for historical vouchers in respect 
to the number of Jews at Rome, during the apostolic age, may con- 
sult Joseph. Antiq. XVII. 14, XVIII. 5, ed. Cologn. Dio Cassius, 
XXXVI. p. 37. Suetonii vita Tiberii, cap. 36. 

When the first impressions arising from the degradation of cap- 
tivity and slavery began to wear away, the Roman citizens seem to 
have looked at the Jewish community with some degree of respect, 
or at least with not a little of curiosity. Whether it arose from the 
disgust which delicate females among the Romans felt for the ob- 
scene rites of heathenism which they were called to practise or to 
witness, or whether it sprung from a curiosity which is characteristic 
of the female sex, the fact was, that in Ovid’s time (ob. A.D. 17) 
some of the most elegant and polished females thronged the Jewish 
assemblies. The poet therefore advises the young men of the city, 
if they wished to see a splendid collection of its beauty, to go to 
the sabbath-day solemnities of the Syrian Jew, “ Cultaque Judxo 
septima sacra Syro.” 

It is not strange, moreover, that some of these should become 
σεβόμεναι or proselytes; as Josephus relates of Fulvia, μία τῶν 
ἐν ἀξιώματι γυναιμῶν, 1. €., ἃ noble woman. By degrees the men 
also, as was natural, began to frequent the assemblies of those once 
despised foreigners. Juvenal, at the close of the first century, pours 
out ae contempt and indignation at this in the following bitter 
words : 


“Quidam sortiti metuentem Sabbata patrem, 
Nil preter nubes, et coeli Numen adorant ; 
Nec distare putant humana carne suillam, 

Qua pater abstinuit; mox et preputia ponunt; 
Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges, 

Judaicum ediscunt, et servant, ac metuunt jus, 
Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses.” 


I suppose the poet must here refer, however, to those who had a 
Roman mother and a Jewish father. In regard to ‘ Nil preter nubes, 
et coeli Numen adorant,’ I take it to refer to the fact, that the Jews 
had no temple at Rome, and that they addressed and worshipped God 
as (welling in heaven, i. 6.9 above the clouds; in both sa 5 respects 
they differed from the heathen. 

Seneca also (fl. A.D. 64), about the time when Paul wrote the 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 13 


Tpistle to the Romans, says, in a fragment preserved by Augustine 
(De Civit. Dei, VII. 11), that “so many Romans had received the 
Jewish [he means by this the Christian| religion, that per omnes 
jam terras recepta sit, victi victoribus leges dederunt.” ‘Tacitus, in 
his Annals, likewise represents the “ exitiabilis superstitio” (Chris- 
tian religion) as breaking out again after being repressed, and 
spreading non modo per Judeam, sed per urbem [Roman] etiam. 
When to these testimonies respecting the Jews at Rome, we add 
that of the Epistle before us respecting Gentile converts, no doubt 
- can be left that the church at Rome was made up of Gentiles as well 
as Jews. Let the reader compare Rom. i. 16—32, 1. 6—11; 1. 
9—19, 29, ix. 24, 30; xi. 18—25, xiv. 1—xv. 13, and no doubt can 
possibly remain in his mind relative to this point. The general 
strain of the whole epistle is such, as that it can be best accounted 
for by the supposition that the church at Rome consisted of both 
Jews and Gentiles, and that each party were endeavouring to propa- 
gate or to defend the peculiar views respecting certain points, which 
they respectively entertained. But of this, more in the sequel. 


§ 3. Of the time and place, when and where the epistle was written. 


We have a kind of stand-point here, with which the epistle itself 
furnishes us. It could not have been written before the decree of 
the emperor Claudius was published, by which the Jews were 
banished from the city of Rome. In Acts xvii. 2, we have an ac- 
count of Paul’s first acquaintance with Aquila and Priscilla, who had 
recently quitted Rome, and come to Corinth, because of the decree of 
Claudius banishing the Jews from the imperial city. Now as Paul 
salutes these same persons, in Rom. xvi. 3, 4, and speaks of them as 
having risked great dangers in his behalf, it follows, of course, that 
his epistle must have been written subsequently to the decree of 
Claudius; which was probably in A.D. 52, or as some say (impro- 
bably however) in A.D. 54. 

It would seem also to have been written after the time when the 
First Epistle to the Corinthians was written, which was during the 
last visit which Paul made to Ephesus, and near the close of that visit 
i. @., about A.D. 56. In Acts xviii. 19, we are told that Paul left 
Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus. After this he made another circuit 
through the churches of Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor (Acts xviii. 
20—23), and returned again to Ephesus, xix. 1. There he spent two 
years or more (xix. 8—10); and near the close of this period, in 
writing to the Corinthians, he sends the salutation of Aquila and 
Priscilla, who were still at Ephesus, 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Now as Paul 
sends a salutation, in his Epistle to the Romans, to Aquila and Pris- 
cilla at Rome, it would seem probable that it must have been written 
after he left Ephesus, and after they had removed from this city to 
the metropolis of the Roman empire. 


14 | INTRODUCTION TO TITE 


Other circumstances concur, to render the matter still more defi- 
nite. When Paul wrote his epistle, he was on the eve of departure 
to Jerusalem, whither he was going to carry the contributions of the 
churches in Macedonia and Achaia, Rom. xy. 25, 26. When he 
should have accomplished this, he intended to make them a visit at 
Rome, Rom. xy. 28, 29. In what part of his life, now, do we find 
the occurrence of these circumstances? Acts xix. 21, compared 
with xx. 1—4, gives us a narration of exactly the same thing. Paul, 
at the close of his last abode at Ephesus, purposing to make a chari- 
table collection in Macedonia and Achaia, first sent on Timothy and 
Erastus to Macedonia in order to forward it there (Acts xix. 22); 
afterwards he himself went into Achaia, passing through Macedonia, 
Acts xx. 1,2. ‘that he came, on this occasion, to the capital of 
Achaia, 7. e., Corinth, there can be no reasonable doubt. Here most 
probably he abode three months (Acts xx. 3); and then set out on 
his contemplated journey to Jerusalem, where he was made prisoner, 
and sent (A.D. 59 or 60) to Rome, in order to prosecute his appeal 
to Cesar. From a comparison of this account in the Acts, with 
Rom. xv. 25—29, it follows of course that the Epistle to the Romans 
must have been written about A.D. 57; although some chronolo- 
gists put it later. Counting the time which Paul’s journey to Jeru- 
salem must have occupied, and adding the two years of his detention 
as a prisoner at Cesarea (Acts xxiv. 27), and the time necessarily 
taken up in going to Rome, we must assign to the Epistle to the 
Romans the date above given, on the supposition that Paul came to 
Rome (as is most probable) about the beginning of the year 60. 

As to the PLACE where it was written, there can be no doubt. In 
xvi. 1, Phebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea, is commended 
to the Romish church, who probably either had charge of the epistle, 
or accompanied those who did carry it; and Cenchrea was the port of 
the city of Corinth, some seven or eight miles from that place. In 
xvi. 23, Gaius is spoken of as the host of Paul; and this Gaius was 
baptized by Paul at Corinth, 1 Cor.i.14. Paul speaks also of Eras- 
tus, the chamberlain of the city, Rom. xvi. 23. The city, then, was 
a well-known one, i. 6.57 the capital of Achaia; and moreover, we find 
this Erastus spoken of in 2 Tim. iv. 20, as abiding at Corinth. 

F'rom all these circumstances, we must conclude that the place of 
writing the Epistle to the Romans was Corinth; and that the time 
was that in which Paul made his last visit there, and near the close 
of it, ὁ, ¢., about the latter part of A.D. 57. 


§ 4. Of the genuineness of the epistle. 


This has been so generally acknowledged at all times and in all 
ages since it was written (excepting the last chapters, which 
have recently been disputed), that it seems to be unnecessary to 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 15 


make any quotations here from the early writers for the sake of 

roving it. It is true, indeed, that some early sects, viz., the 

bionites, Encratites, and Cerinthians, rejected it; as appears from 
Trenzus ad Heres. 1. 26; Epiphan. Heres. XXX. Hieronym. in 
Matt. xii. 2. But as this seems to have been purely on doctrinal 
grounds, i. ¢., because they could not make the sentiments of Paul 
in this epistle to harmonize with their own views, it follows of 
course that no weight can be attached to their opinions. The 
question whether Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans, is of an 
historical, not of a doctrinal nature. 

The reader who is curious to see an exhibition of early testimony 
respecting this epistle, may find it amply detailed in Lardner’s 
Credibility, and in Schmidii Historia et Vindicie Canonis Sac., &e. 
The circumstantial evidence which evinces its genuineness, he will 
find admirably exhibited in Paley’s Hore Pauline. 

Those who do not possess the first two of these works, may con- 
sult Polycarp, Epist. and Philipp. cap. 6; Clemens Rom. Ep. and 
Cor. cap. 35; both in Cotelerii Patres Apostolici. See also Theoph. 
ad Autolye. I. 20; ILL. 14. Epist. Ecc. Vienn. et Lugd.in Euseb. 
Hist. Eee. V. 1. Irenzus cont. Heres. III. 16. ὃ 3. Clem. Alex. 
Strom. IIL, p. 457, and I., p. 117, edit. Sylburg. Tertull. adv. 
Praxeam, cap. 13; de Corona, cap. 6. Cypr. Ep. LXIX. It is 


needless to cite later testimonies. 


§ Of the genuineness of chapters xv. Xvi. 


The genuineness of these chapters, at least as a part of the proper 
Epistle to the Romans, has been called in question, and is still 
doubted by some. Heumann has advanced a peculiar hypothesis 
respecting chap. xvi. He thinks that the proper original epistle of 
Paul ends with chap. xi., and excludes from it all the hortatory part, 
ὦ. ¢., chapters xii.—xv. Chapter xvi., he supposes, was originally 
‘attached to the end of chap. xi.; and that the sequel of the epistle 
is a kind of postscript or second letter, added by Paul after some 
delay in transmitting the first letter. ‘This hypothesis, indeed, does 
not really deny the genuineness of any part of the epistle; but it 
advances what seems to be very improbable. What could be more 
natural than for Paul, after he had completed his doctrinal dis- 
cussions, to caution the church at Rome against various evils to 
which he knew them to be particularly exposed? Is not this his 
manner elsewhere? And does not the οὖν (chap. xii. 1) necessarily 
import a connection between the sequel and the preceding context ? 
In a word, the whole theory is so gratuitous, that it does not seem 
to be entitled to any serious contradiction. 

Semler, however, has advanced much farther than Heumann. In 
his Dissert. de dupl. Appendice Ep. Pauli ad Rom., he advances the 


10 INTRODUCTION TO THE 


supposition, “that chap. xv. was not addressed to the Romans, but 
to those who had charge of Paul’s epistle to them, which consisted 
of chapters 1—xv., with the doxology in xvi. 25 —27.” 

But let any one, now, without any reference to such a hypothesis, 
sit down and carefully read chap. xy., and I will venture to predict 
that he will never once even think of its being addressed to any 
other persons, than those to whom the preceding part of the epistle 
is addressed. In particular; how can he help feeling that verses 
1—13 do very closely cohere with chap. xiv., as the ὀφείλομεν δέ at 
the beginning indicates? And in the remaining part of the chapter, 
what is there which is incongruous with the condition and relation 
of Paul in respect to his readers? Compare verses 15, 23 with 
i. 13, and also xv. 28 with Acts xix. 21, the latter of which passages 
shows the actual condition of Paul when he wrote the epistle. 1 
am entirely unable to see why Paul should have given personally to 
the bearers of his letter to the Romans, such hints as chap. xv. 
contains; nor can I imagine what inducement Semler had to sup- 
pose this. But, 

Chap. xvi. is more exposed to attack; because it consists of matter 
in general which is easily dissociated from the rest of the epistle. If 
the whole of it be omitted, the epistle is still, in all important re- 
spects, the same; if it be retained, the matter added consists chiefly 
in the expression of personal civilities. Moreover, the concluding 
part of chap. xv. would make a very probable and analogical close 
of the epistle; in particular if the ἀμὴν at the close of ver. 33 be 
retained. 

Probably grounds such as these first occasioned doubts concern- 
ing the genumeness of this chapter in particular. Semler advances 
a supposition respecting it, which (I had almost said) none but a 
man of such visionary phantasies could have advanced. He sup- 
poses that all the persons to whom greetings are sent in verses 1—16, 
are those whom the bearers of the epistle expected to visit on their 
way to Rome; and of course, that none of these were to be found 
in Rome itself. Consequently, according to him, this part of the 
epistle was a mere letter of commendation or introduction, de- 
al for the bearers of the epistle, and not for the church at 

me. 

According to this, then, the first stage of the journey of the letter- 
earriers was only to Cenchrea, some seven or eight miles from 
Corinth, to the house of Phebe. But the singularity of Paul’s re- 
commendation is, that instead of commending them to her hospitality, 
he commends her to the hospitality of those whom he addresses: 
συγίστημι δὲ ὑμῖν Φοίβην . . . . .. ἵνα αὐτὴν προσδέξησϑε, x. σ΄. A. 
Semler felt the incongruity of this, and referred σπροσδέξησθε to re- 
ceiving into communion. Did Phebe, then, living within a couple of 
hours’ walk from Corinth, and famous as she was for being a goo. 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 17 


τάτις πολλῶν (vers. 2), need a written recommendation of Paul, in 
order that the bearers of his letters might admit her to church com- 
munion? But besides this, the word sposdéEno3e, in such a con- 
nection does not admit of suchasense. Comp. Phil. ii. 29, and also 
(as to general meaning) 3 John v. 6. 

Thus much for the outset of this journey. Nor is the progress 
more fortunate. Aquila and Priscilla are next recommended to the 
letter-carriers. But the last which we know of them, before the 
writing of this letter, is that they are at Ephesus, Acts xviii. 18, 19, 
26. But Semler provides them with a house at Corinth; and this, 
probably, because it would not be very natural for those who were 
to travel westward toward Rome, to go some hundreds of miles east- 
ward, 7. ¢., to Ephesus, in order to get to the capital of the Roman 
Empire. But how is the matter helped by this process? What have 
we now? A letter of introduction (so to speak) from Paul, directing 
his messengers to greet Priscilla and Aquila on their journey, while 
these same persons lived in the very town from which they started ! 
Hug has well expressed his views of this matter. After speaking of 
the first stay of Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth (Acts xviii. 2,) and 
of a second at Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18, 19,) he thus proceeds: “ Whence 
now this third or Semlerian house at Corinth, I know not,” Einleit. 
II. p. 397, ed. 3. But, lastly, what are we to do with verses 17—20, 
on the ground of Semler? Were the bearers of the letter so divided 
as is there described; and was their obedience (ὑπακοῇ) so cele- 
brated as is there hinted? Above all, what is to be done with verses 
21—24? Would Paul send written salutations from those who 
were with him at Corinth, to the bearers of his epistle who set out 
from the same place? Did they not confer with Paul himself, and 
did not his friends as well as himself see and converse with them? 
And what shall we say to ver. 16, which directs Paul’s messengers 
to salute one another? 

But enough of this. Let us briefly examine some of the external 
evidences which Semler adduces against the genuineness of chap. 
XVi. 

(a) ‘Marcion, as Origen testifies, excluded chaps. xv. xvi. from 
the epistle.’ 

But according to Rufin’s translation of Origen (the original here 
is lost), the words of this writer are: “Caput hoc [{. ¢., xvi. 25—27], 
Marcion, a quo Scripture evangelice et apostolic interpolate sunt, 
de hac epistola penitus abstulit; et non solum hoc, sed et ab eo 
ubi scriptum est: ‘Omne autem quod non ex fide est, peccatum est’ 
[Rom. xiv. 23] usque ad finem totius epistole, cuncta dissecuit.” 
rom this nothing more can be gathered, than that Marcion wholly 
omitted the doxology in xvi. 25—27, and separated (dissecuit) chaps. 
Xv. xvi., from the rest of the epistle. There is an evident dis- 
tinction here, between penitus abstulit and dissecuit. ‘This sepa- 

B 


18 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE 


ration Marcion might make, as others have done, because of the 
diverse matter contained in these chapters. And even if Marcion 
omitted the whole, he stands convicted before the world of such 
notorious falsifications of the sacred writings, that it would weigh 
nothing. 

(d)  Wuthalins, in his Hlenchus capitulorun, leaves out chap. xvi. 

True; but Euthalius, in his Elenchus, mentions only those chap- 
ters which were publicly read; and chap. xvi. was usually omitted 
in the public reading of the epistle. That he did not acknowledge 
this chapter as a part of the epistle, is altogether improbable, sinee, 
in reckoning the στίχοι of the whole epistle he includes those of 
chap. xvi. 

(ὁ) ‘Tertullian (cont. Mare. v. 13) cites Rom. xiv. 10 thus: ‘In 
clausula, tribunal Christi comminari Paulum. 

But what should hinder Tertullian from saying that chap. xiv. 10 
is in the clausula, i. ¢., closing part, of the epistle? Is it not in such 
a part? Can any thing be satisfactorily proved, moreover, by 
urging a sense of words strictly and logically exact, in such a writer 
as Tertullian? 

As to any alleged discrepancy of manuscripts, with regard to a 
part of chap. xvi., I shall have occasion to notice this in the sequel. 

But, very recently, another doubter in the genuineness of chap. 
xvi., of amore solid cast than Semler, has made his appearance. 
Schott, in his [sagoge ad Nov. Test., recently published, in a note, 
p- 284 seq., has assigned other, and perhaps better, reasons than 
those of Semler, for his doubts. Let us examine them. 

(a) ‘Paul salutes many persons, in xvi. 5—15, as being at Rome, 
and in a very familiar way. How could he, who had never been at 
Rome (Rom. i. 13), do this? 

The answer is, that several of these persons were his own kins- 
men; see ὃ 1 above. With all or most of them he had very pro- 
bably met, in the course of his travels. Intercourse between the 
metropolis of the Roman Empire and the large towns of the pro- 
vinces, was very frequent; especially with Corinth, the headquarters 
of Achaia, and Ephesus of Asia Minor. And even if Paul had not 
seen all the persons whom he salutes, what is easier than to suppose 
that their character and standing were known to him, and there- 
fore he sent them salutations? It is plainly a mistake, to sup- 
pose ae none but personal acquaintances are saluted in the Pauline 
epistles. 

(4) ‘But Paul makes no mention of any of the persons here 
saluted as being at Rome, in his other epistles written there, 6. g., 
in his epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Phile- 
mon,’ 

The answer is, that in only one of these (that to the Colossians) 
does he send any thing but a mere general salutation. Moreover, as 


————— eC 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 19 


all these epistles must have been written some two years and a half, 
and may have been written some four years later, than the Epistle 
to the Romans, so the state of that church, exposed as it was con- 
tinually to increase and decrease, may have greatly altered when he 
wrote the last-named epistles; or the persons named in his Epistle 
to the Romans may have gone elsewhere in order to propagate the 
gospel; or they might have deceased; or it might be that they did 
not happen to pay him a visit while he was writing the above named 
epistles, and so a greeting from them was not mentioned. A thing 
of this nature is so accidentally varied, that we cannot make any 
conclusions which are valid, either from this appearance or from 
that. | 

(c) ‘ Aquila and Priscilla are saluted as being at Rome. In Acts 
xvill. 19, 26, we find their abode at Ephesus; and in Paul’s last stay 
at Ephesus, when he wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians, we 

find them still there, 1 Cor. xvi. 19. 

All this I concede. But since Aquila and Priscilla had, for some 
time, been obliged to relinquish their abode at Rome, on account of 
the decree of Claudius, what is more natural than to suppose, that, 
as soon as might be, they would return to Rome, at least long 
enough to adjust their affairs there, which it is more than probable 
had been embarrassed by the decree of banishment ? 

(4) ‘But 2 Tim. iv. 19, written at Rome, greets Priscilla and 
Aquila as residing at Ephesus.’ 

I grant it. But when was this written? Just before the final 
martyrdom of Paul (iv. 6—8) i. ¢., probably some ten years after 
the Epistle to the Romans was written, and also after the persecu- 
tion by Nero had commenced. What difficulty now in the suppo- 
sition, that Aquila and Priscilla had fled from Rome when this 
copitetegi broke out, and gone back to their former station at 

phesus, where they had spent several years? There Paul salutes 
them in 2 Tim. iv. 19. 

Lastly, Professor Schott expresses his belief, that chap. xvi. is 
made up of fragments of some brief epistle of Paul’s, written at 
Corinth, and addressed to some church in Asia Minor, and added by 
mistake, piece by piece as it was discovered, to the Epistle to the 
Romans. Verses 1—16 composed the first fragment; verses 17—20, 
the second; verses 21—24, the third; verses 25—27, the fourth. 

But what a series of conclusions is here made out, without a syl- 
lable of historical evidence? Where is the evidence of the lost 
epistle to an anonymous church in Asia Minor? Where that it was 
lost excepting a few scattered fragments which “ sensim sensimque 
deprehendebantur?” And the conceit of adding all these fragments 
to the Epistle to the Romans, which already had a good ending with 
chap. xv.; how should this have ever entered any one’s head? Why 
add them to this epistle, rather than to some of Paul's shorter 


20 INTRODUCTION TO THE 


epistles? And then the persons themselves named in chapter xvi. ; 
what a singular phantasy it must have been in the compiler, to have 
supposed that, if they belonged to some church in Asia Minor, their 
names could be tacked on to the epistle written to the church at 
Rome!” How can we admit such gratuitous and improbable hypo- 
theses as these? 

Nor can I admit what has frequently been said in respect to chap. 
XV1., viz., that it is wholly unconnected with the preceding part of 
the epistle, and may be disjoined from it without injury to it. Thus 
much is true, indeed, viz., that salutations and expressions of Chris- 
tian courtesy are not doctrinal discussions nor practical precepts; 
in a word, the sixteenth chapter, which is principally made up of 
salutations, must of course be diverse from the preceding part of the 
epistle. But is it not equally true that chaps. xii.—xv. differ as — 
much from the preceding ones, as chap. xvi. does from all the others? 
Isit proper, moreover, that Christian salutations should be exchanged, 
in epistles like that of Paul? This will not be denied. The force 
of such examples of kindness, and courtesy, and benevolent feeling, 
is scarcely less than that of direct precept; and in some respects 
it has evidently the advantage of precept, inasmuch as practice 
speaks louder than theory. Why, then, should the salutary part of 
the epistle be thrown away? And would not rejecting it be 
an injury to the congruity and to the general good effect of the 
whole? 

Nor is it correct to say, that there is not an evident relation and 
connection of some part of chap. xvi., with what precedes, besides 
that which has just been mentioned. Let any one diligently consider 
the contents of verses 17—20, and he will see plainly that they refer 
to the divisions and erroneous sentiments which are the subject of 
particular discussion in chaps. xii.—xy. Let him compare xvi. 19 
with i. 8, and he will see the same person expressing himself in the 
same circumstances. In a word, it would be truly wonderful, if the 
straggling fragments of an epistle, sent to some unknown church in 
Asia Minor, should fit the place of conclusion to the Epistle to the 
Romans so well as its present conclusion fits it. 

What can we say, moreover, to the τολμηρότερον δὲ ἔγρωψε ὑμῖν 
of xy. 15, if Paul does not refer to the whole of the preceding epistle ? 
It would be even ridiculous, on any other ground, And what a 
singular epistle chaps. xv. xvi. scout make out, consisting almost 
wholly of salutations! 

Kichhorn (Einleit. in das N. Test.) has advanced a hypothesis still 
more fanciful, if possible, than that of Semler or Schott. Chap. xvi. 
1—20 is, according to him, a letter of recommendation to the Corin- 
thian church, which Paul wrote for Phebe, the deaconess mentioned 
in verses 1,2. This, after it had been read by them, she obtained 
again, and carried it along with her to Rome; and because the 


Ξ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 21 


church there were unwilling that any thing from the hand of Paul 
should perish, they tacked it on upon the epistle of Paul to them, 
so as to make out a conclusion for it! — 

Is it worth the pains to refute such criticism? Or rather, can the 
name of criticism be fairly given to such extravagant and incon- 
gruous suppositions? One is ready to ask: What sort of a church 
must it have been, in the metropolis of the world, and whose fame 
had gone abroad through the whole empire, that could deal thus 
with Paul’s epistles? Why was not the letter of Phebe kept by 
itself, and published by itself, as well as John’s letter to the “ elect 
lady?” But this is only one among the numerous conceits, which 
are intermingled with the striking and instructive compositions of 
Eichhorn. 

Finally, as no internal evidence can be made out, that chaps. xv. 
XVi. are spurious; so no external evidence of any considerable 
weight can be adduced in favour of this supposition. The manu- 
scripts (with some variety as to the position of xvi. 25—27, and with 
the omission of these verses in a few cases) are all on the side of the 
genuineness of these chapters; I mean, that all which are of any 
authority are so. Jerome (Comm. in Eph. iii. 5) mentions that he 
knew of some manuscripts which omitted xvi. 25—27; and Wetstein 
cites a Codex Latinus which does so. But in regard to all the rest 
of chaps. xv. xvi., it will not be contended that any authority from 
manuscripts, Fathers, or Versions, warrants us in suspecting them. 
Even as to Marcion himself, there is no certain evidence, as we have 
seen, that he rejected them. Why, then, should we reject them at 
the present time ? 


§ 6. Different position in Manuscripts of xvi. 25—27. 


There is a difference in respect to the location of these verses 
containing a general doxology, which seems to be somewhat difficult 
of solution. 

(1) In Cod. J., and in most of the Codd. minusc.; in the Lection- 
aries Arab. polyglot. et triglot., in Slav. Ms. and most Codd. Armen.; 
also in Chrys., Theod., Damasc., Theoph., and Oecumenius; they 
stand only and immediately after chap. xiv. 23. In Cod. A., 17, 
Armen. edd. quib., they stand both here and at the end. After xiv. 
23, they are placed by Beza, Grotius, Mill, Hammond, Wetstein, 
Semler, Griesbach, Morus, Eichhorn, Flatt, Tholuck, Paulus, and 
some others. 

This is the sum of the external evidence, in respect to this posi- 
tion of the verses in question. But in whatever way they may have 
been transferred thither, it seems difficult to avoid the feeling of in- 
congruity as to sucha position. It is an evident interruption of the 
tenor of the discourse. The ὀφείλομεν δέ of xv. 1, shows that it is 


22 INTRODUCTION TO THE 


a continuation of a preceding discourse ; and so plainly does the 
matter of verses 1—13 itself indicate. Nor am I able to persuade 
myself, that the matter at the close of chap. xiv. is of such a tenor, 
as entitles us to believe that Paul here breaks out into an animated 
doxology. Usually, it is only after the enunciation of some deep, 
sublime, soul-stirring truth, that he betakes himself to expressions 
of this nature in medio cursu. What is there in the discussion about 
eating meats or refraining from them, to move his soul to the sub- 
lime doxology contained in xvi. 25—27? I must accord therefore 
with Knapp, who places these verses at the end of the oer. 

(2) A few MSS., &c., omit the verses in question. Jerome (on 
Eph. iii. 5), speaking of the passage in Romans, says, “in plerisque 
codicibus invenitur ;” which would seem to mean, that in some 
Codices of his time it was omitted. The verses are omitted by Cod. 
D., but not a prima manu; in Ἐς, G. (in the latter a space is left 
for them); also in Codd. Vindob. 57, 67, 68, 69, 70, as stated by 
Koppe; in an unknown MS. mentioned by Erasmus; and in Vers. 
Armen., of some editions. 

Kichhorn, as usual, has built a singular castle in the air upon this 
fact. He accounts for all the varieties in the manuscripts in this 
way: (1) The original piece of parchment on which Paul’s epistle 
was written, was filled when the scribe came to xiv. 23. He then 
took a small and separate piece of parchment, on one side of which 
he wrote the salutations in verses 21—24; and on the other the 
doxology in verses 25—27. But the letter not being immediately 
sent, the apostle made additions to it; first of chap. xy., and then of 
xvi. 1—20. So then the epistle was sent to the church at Rome, on 
four separate pieces of manuscript. In copying this, some ended the 
epistle with xiv. 23; others added to this the doxology in xvi. 25—27; 
a third class copied as far as xiv. 23, and then added the postscripts 
of the apostle (xv. 1—xvi. 20), and finally the small leaf of parch- 
ment written with the body of the epistle (which is the usual form 
of the epistle); while a fourth class, copying from these different 
copies, inserted the doxology both after xiv. 23, and at the end of 
the whole epistle. 

Sorry copyists, indeed, they must have been at Rome, to make 
such mistakes as these! One is ready to wonder, why the additional 
parchments were not joined on to the original one, in proper order, 
and not left in the form of Sybilline leaves; a thing which required 
nothing more than a little paste or glue, and a moment’s attention. 
Then, supposing them to have been left separately, were there no 
marks added by the writer, to direct the reader’s attention and 
perusal? Are important documents wont to be made out in such a 
negligent manner? But (which is directly to our present purpose) 
how came any copyist to imagine, that the letter ended with chap. 
xiv. 23? Or why, as so many mistakes were made about the order 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 23 


of the small piece of parchment first added, were none made about 
the order of the two different postscripts, viz., xv. 1—33 and xvi. 
1—20? 

I am grieved to add, that Griesbach, in attempting to account for 
the variations of manuscripts in regard. to xvi. 25—27, has advanced 
suppositions not less visionary and gratuitous than those of Kich- 
horn. ‘This is the more to be wondered at, since Griesbach is not 
much prone to phantasies of this nature. The reader of Eichhorn 
is not surprised to find such a conceit in him; fora critic, who could 

add on the last twenty-six chapters of the book of Isaiah (which he 

names Pseudo-Isaiah), to the genuine works of that prophet, because 
the copyist happened to have room to spare in his parchment and 
wanted to fill it out (Einleit. in das. A. Test. iii. p. 91, ed. 3d), may 
well be imagined not to be incapable of making suppositions like 
those above related. 

But what if we, at the present day, are unable to account for the 
confusion of manuscripts, with regard to xvi. 25—27? Will this 
oblige us to resort to suppositions altogether incrediblein themselves? 
To say the least, it should not induce us thus to do. We cannot, 
then,—at least until we come to the persuasion that parchment was 
as scarce and dear in ancient times as Eichhorn (so often as it suits 
his critical convenience) makes it, we cannot—admit a supposition 
which involves such an entire ὕότερον πρότερον, In a most solemn and 
important epistle of Paul. And even if we admit that parchment 
was so scarce and so dear, we are, after all, at our wits’ end to know 
why the concluding piece was hot joined on to the same roll which 
contained the rest of the epistle. 

(3) With the Teartus Receptus, which places these verses at the 
end, agree Codd. B., C., D., E., 16, 66; Codd. minusc. 80; also 
Syr. Erp., Copt., Aeth., Vulg., and the Latin Fathers in general. 
With Erasmus, Stephens, Bengel, Koppe, Boehme, Hug, Knapp, 
Bertholdt, De Wette, Riickert, and others, Iam persuaded that 
this is their genuine place. What shall we say of ἐγὼ Tégrios, ὃ 
γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν, in xvi. 222? Does it not of course imply, that 
it is near the close of the epistle, and that the epistle is one? And 
if so, then are chapters xv. xvi. a genuine and original part of it, as 
Bertholdt has well remarked, Einleit. vi. ὃ 715. 

‘But how can so many doxologies be accounted for?’ To which 
I answer, that no serious difficulty lies in the way of this. It is not 
natural to suppose, indeed it cannot well be supposed, that the apostle 
wrote the whole epistle in a single day, or at a single sitting. If, in 
the midst of his multiplied engagements and his short stay at Corinth, 
he was several days, or even weeks, in writing it (which we may 
easily and probably suppose); then we can account for the various 
doxologies and apparent closes of the epistle, in chapters xv., xvi. It 
is easy to believe, that xv. 33 was the first pause which was made 


94 INTRODUCTION TO THE 


with the probable design, originally, of ending the epistle there. 
Afterwards, renewed and additional intelligence coming from Rome, 
with kind greeting of friends there, he was induced to add, in return, 
the greetings in xvi. 1—16; to which he subjoined the warnings, and 
the apparent conclusion in verses 17—20. The definiteness with 
which he here speaks of the divisions and erroneous sentiments in the 
Church at Rome, in all probability had its origin in the very recent 
information which he had obtained from that city. Finally, before 
sending away his epistle, other Christians at Corinth, deeply inte- 
rested in the affairs of the Church at Rome, visited the apostle and 
desired him to express their salutations. This done, he adds, as 
usual, another kind wish and prayerforthe Church which headdresses, 
xvi. 24. And then, in reading over and correcting the copy which 
Tertius had made of the whole, Paul, at the close of all, subjoined 
the general doxology which is contained in verses 25—27. 

If you say: ‘ Here are almost as many suppositions as those of 
Eichhorn and Griesbach ;’ my reply is, that there are almost as many 
in respect to number, but still of a totally different character. Here 
the appeal is made to the internal state of the epistle itself, and to 
the probable and natural circumstances which accompany the writing 
of such a letter. Nothing stands in the way of believing the things 
just suggested to be altogether probable. But when all these phe- 
nomena are made to depend on odd pieces of parchment, and Sibyl- 
line leaves, strangely forwarded without juncture or order, and as 
strangely mistaken in the copying, how can we satisfy ourselves with 
such suggestions ? 

That the manuscripts differ so much, as to xvi. 25—27, is indeed 
a striking circumstance in the critical history of the epistle to the 
Romans. But.if any one will attentively reflect on the several ap- 
parent conclusions in the epistle (xv. 13, 23, and xvi. 20, 24), he 
may easily be induced to believe, that the confusion in the manu- 
scripts has arisen from this circumstance. Copyists supposed there 
must be some mistake in having a conclusion in xvi. 24, and then 
another superadded in verses 25—27. It was natural for them to find 
a difficulty in this. Therefore, with the conviction that here was some 
mistake, they sought an earlier place for these verses; and they could 
find none which was not already occupied by something of the like 
nature, without going back to xiv. 23. Here, then, some of them 
placed xvi. 25—27, and others followed these copies. In the mean 
time, other copies continued to be taken after the original order of 
the epistle, and thus a discrepancy arose. Some copyists, perceiving 
this pont att and also the fact that chapters xv. and xvi. contain 
so many formulas of conclusion, omitted xvi. 25—27 ; while others, 
finding these verses in some copies of xiv. 23, and in others at the end 
of the epistle, copied them both. In this way we can easily account 
for al] the discrepancies that exist, without resorting to any forced or 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 25 


unnatural suppositions. We may add to all this, moreover, the 
probability that the public lections of the epistle extended only to 
the end of chap. xiv.; to which it was altogether natural to add xvi. 
25—27 as a proper close; and that the practice of reading the epistle 
in this manner, gradually introduced the writing of manuscripts in 
the same way. 

(4) A few critics reject the verses in question as spurious. So 
Schmidt, and Reiche in his recent commentary on the Epistle to the 
Romans. ‘The latter has argued at length against their genuineness. 
His arguments are derived fromthe alleged style and manner of the 
doxology. He accuses it of being deficient in simplicity, of bom- 
bastic and overstrained expression, of a dogmatic manner; of being 
doubtful and dark and unusual, yea, unintelligible; of a drawling 
repetition for three times of κατα; of a doubtful construction of ᾧ 
near the close; of expressions not Pauline, not proper, 6. 9.» sbayyé- 
λιόν μου καὶ κἤρυγμα I, Χριστοῦ; and finally he says, it is all made 
up of shreds collected here and there from the writings of Paul, 6. g., 
from Rom. ii. 16; Gal. i. 6; Eph. 11. 3; Col. i. 26; 2 Tim. 1. 8; 
Tit. i. 1; Rom. i. 5; 1 Tim. vi. 16; Rom. ii. 16,1.9; Heb. xii. 
20—23; in which places, if the reader pleases to turn to them, he 
will find in succession expressions like those in our text. 

That most of these accusations are not well founded, the reader may 
satisfy himself by thoroughly studying the verses under examination. 
That the expressions here resemble other expressions of Paul, can 
surely be no proof of their spuriousness, nor of their being dark and 
unintelligible. 1 will not say, that internal evidence can in no case 
be proof of spuriousness; for this would be an extravagant asser- 
tion. But we may well say, that when all critics except two have 
failed to discover the internal evidences just alleged, there cannot 
be much probability in favour of their existence. ‘lhe doxology, 
although it is somewhat difficult of interpretation on account of its 


complex nature, seems to me evidently to be in the spirit and man- 
ner of Paul. 


§ 7. State of feeling and opinion in the Church at Rome, when the 
epistle was written. τ 


That this Church consisted of Jews and Gentiles, we have already 
seen; § 2 above. That many of the erroneous views which Paul 
combats in it, were such as the Hebrews were prone to cherish, there 
can be no doubt on the part of any one well acquainted with the 
history of Jewish opinions. That grounds of dissension among its 
members existed in the Church of Rome, we can hardly refuse to 
believe, when we consider the general tenor of the epistle. The 
national pride ofthe Jew; his attachment to the Mosaic institutes, 
and especially to the Levitical rites and distinctions of clean and 


26 INTRODUCTION TO THE ROMANS. 


unclean; his impatience of subordination in any respect to Gentiles; 
his unwillingness to believe that they could be admitted to equal pri- 
vileges with the Jew, in the kingdom of the Messiah, and particu- 
larly without becoming proselytes to the Mosaic religion ; his prone- 
ness to feel indignant to the government of heathen magistrates over 
him; all this lies on the face of the epistle, and cannot well be 
overlooked by any considerate and attentive reader. 

On the other hand; the Gentiles disregarded the prejudices of the 
Jews, especially about circumcision, and meats and drinks, and holi- 
days; they were wounded at the claim of superiority which the Jews 
seemed to make ; and, knowing that the great apostle to the Gentiles 
was an advocate for their equal rights and privileges, they no doubt 
engaged in contest with the Jews with an unyielding spirit. Such a 
state of things very naturally gave rise to discussions in the Epistle 
to the Romans, and to all the cautions and precepts contained in 
the hortatory part of the epistle. 

With this general view of the condition of the Church before us, 
we need not be solicitous to determine whether the apostle had special 
and local objects in view, when he wrote it, or more general ones. 
My answer to this question would be, that he had both in view ; 7. 6.» 
he meant to establish some great and general principles of Chris- 
tianity, and also to apply them to the state of the Church at Rome. 
Nothing can be more natural than this supposition; and so Luther, 
Calvin, Melancthon, Bucer, Michaelis, ‘Tholuck, and others, have 
for substance judged. . That Paul intermingles with general truths 
many things which are local, is almost a matter of course in an epi- 
stle to a particular church. The contents of the epistle itself, or a 
brief analysis and synopsis of the whole, I reserve for a separate 
statement. 


BRIEF ANALYSIS 


OF THE 


CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


Werk I to select a motto, which would in a single brief sentence de- 
signate the substance of what this epistle contains, it should be taken from 
the apostle Paul himself: 

ΧΡΙΣΤῸΣ ‘HMIN AIKAIOSYNH TE KAI ‘ATIASMO3, 
Ἢ CHRIST OUR JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION. 

The first five chapters exhibit Christ as the author and efficient cause 
of our justification. 

After an appropriate and sGoctionats introduction (i. 1—16), the apo- 
stle proceeds to show, that the Gentiles had universally transgressed the 
law of God which was written on their hearts, because they had indulged 
in a great variety of sins which they knew to be wrong (i. 17-32). He 
next proceeds to show, that the Jews were even more guilty still, inasmuch 


as they had sinned against more light and more distinguished privileges 


(ii. 1—3, 19). He now draws the conclusion from these premises, that 
justification by deeds of law, ὁ. e., on the score of merit or on the ground 
of perfect obedience, is impossible; for, inasmuch as all men have sinned 
against the law of God, all are under its condemnation, and therefore 
grace or mercy only can save them from perishing. This grace is vouch- 
safed only through Christ, and has been procured by his sufferings and 
death in behalf of sinners (iii. 20—21). 

The Old Testament also teaches the same doctrine of gratuitous justi- 
fication; and that this should be extended to Gentiles as well as Jews 
(iv. 1—25). 

The happy fruits of such a state of justification—peace with God, sup- 
port and consolation in the midst of trials and sufferings, a hope which 
maketh not ashamed, and never can be disappointed—are next described 
by the writer (v.1—11). And that it is perfectly proper and becoming on 
the part of God, to extend those blessings to all, both Jews and Gentiles, 
is strikingly taught by an exhibition of the fact, that all have been made to 
share in the evils which flowed from the apostasy of our original progeni- 
tors (v. 12—19). Even in those cases where sin has exhibited its greatest 
power, the grace of the gospel is made to triumph over it (v. 20, 21). 

Thus is CHRIST OUR JUSTIFICATION set forth by the apostle. 
He comes next to exhibit CHRIST OUR SANCTIFICATION. This 
important topic he introduces, by discussing the objection raised against 


‘the doctrine of gratuitous justification, viz., that it tends to encourage sin. 


He shows in the first place; from various considerations, the incongruity 
and impossibility of this (vi. 1, 23). He then proceeds to contrast a state 
of grace and the means and motives to holiness which it furnishes, with a 
legal state; and to show that in the latter, the sinner has no hope of 
maintaining a holy character, while in the former he is abundantly fur- 
nished with the means of doing it; consequently that a state of grace, so 
far from encouraging men to sin, affords them the only hope of their being 
able to subdue and mortify sin (vii. 1—8, 17). 


28 ANALYSIS. 


The apostle then, as he had before done at the close of his discussion 
respecting justification (v. 1—11), goes on to show the consolation which 
the gospel affords, under the various troubles of the present life (viii. 18— 
27); and in the sequel he concludes, as in the former case, with exultation 
in the certainty of future and eternal glory to all who truly love God (viii. 
28—39). 

The part of the epistle properly doctrinal, concludes with the 8th chapter. 
Chapter ix. discusses the objection raised against the dealings of God with 
his creatures, when he makes some of them the distinguished subjects of his 
mercy, and passes by others. Chap. x. confirms still farther, by various 
considerations, and particularly by texts cited from the Old Testament, the 
idea that the Jews who remain in unbelief are and must be cast off; and 
therefore that this is not a new or strange doctrine. Chap. xi. continues to 
urge the same subject; but at the close deduces from it the cheering consola- 
tion, that even the rejection of the Jews will be made a great blessing to the 
world, as it will be the occasion of salvation being sent to the Gentiles, 
And if their rejection be attended with consequences so important, then 
surely their reception again will fill the world with its happy fruits. 

The rest of the epistle is hortatory, and is adapted specially to warn the 
Church at Rome against several errors, to which, in their circumstances, 
they were peculiarly exposed. First, they are exhorted to lay aside all 
pride, and envious distinctions, and claims to preference on the ground of 
office, gifts, &c.; and to conduct themselves in a kind, affectionate, gentle, 
peaceable manner (xii. 1—21). 

Next, they are exhorted to a quiet and orderly demeanour in regard to 
the civil power, which the Jews were especially prone to contemn (xiii. 
1—7). The great law of love is to be regarded and obeyed toward all men, 
without or within the Church (xiii. 8—14). 

Thirdly, the Gentile Christians are admonished to respect the scruples of 
their Jewish brethren on the subject of eating meats offered to idols, and 
admonished that they have no right to interfere either in this matter or in 
other things of the like tenor (xiy. 1, xv. 7). On the other hand, the Jews 
are admonished that their Gentile brethren have equal rights and privileges 
with themselves, under the gospel dispensation (xv. 8—13). 

The writer then expresses his good hopes concerning them all, his kind 
and tender regard for them, and his purposes in respect to visiting them. 

Lastly, he subjoins the salutation of the various Christians who were 
with him; cautions them against those who seek to make divisions among 
them; and concludes with a doxology. 

Such is the brief sketch of the contents of the epistle before us. It is 
one, however, which the reader may perhaps not fully understand and ap- 
preciate, until he shall have attentively studied the whole; but still, one to 
which he may recur, in order to satisfy himself in some measure respecting 
the relation which a particular part has to the whole. To make this satis- 
faction complete, it is important that he should become well acquainted 
with the general scope and object of the whole epistle. The details of the 
respective parts are given in the introductions to each, which are embodied 
with the commentary, although distinguished from it by the smaller type 
in which they are printed, 


———— << 


COMMENTARY ON THE ROMANS. 


CHAP. 1. 1—16. 


THE introductory part of the Epistle to the Romans, i. 1—16, contains, (1) A salutation, 
vers. 1—7. (2) A brief declaration of some personal wishes and concerns, vers. 8—16. The 
apostle, being a stranger in person to the Church at Rome, begins his epistle with exhibiting the 
nature of his office and of his relation to the Church of God, ver. 1. Having mentioned that he 
had been set apart for the service of God in the gospel, he hints, in passing, that this same gospel 
had been before announced by the ancient prophets, ver. 2, and that it has respect to him who 
was of the seed of David according to the flesh, or in his humbler condition, but the decreed Son 
of God who dispensed the Holy Spirit with power after his resurrection, vers. 3,4. From him, 
who was thus the constituted Lord of all, Paul avers that he had received such grace as made 
him one of Christ’s devoted followers, and also the office of an apostle to the Gentiles, in order to 
promote the knowledge of a Saviour among them, ver. 5; and inasmuch as the Romans were 
among these Gentiles, and were called to be heirs of the grace of life, ver. 6, he addresses them, 
wishing them every needed spiritual and temporal blessing. 

He next passes on to circumstances cf a personal nature, which seem to prepare the way for 
the subsequent addresses that he is to make to them. He thanks God that their Christian faith 
is so distinguished as to become a matter of universal notice, ver. 8; declares the strong desire 
which he had long cherished of paying them a visit, and that they had been the continual subject 
of his remembrance when coming before the throne of grace, vers. 9,10; and alleges his wish 
not only to impart spiritual consolation and joy to them, but to receive the same from them, 
vers. 11,12. He then repeats his declaration respecting the desire he had all along cherished, 
of paying them a visit, and states the reasons why he had not fulfilled it, ver. 13. He expresses 
a wish to preach among them, as well as among other Gentiles, inasmuch as he considers himself 
under obligation to preach the gospel to all classes of men among the heathen, vers. 14,15. Of 
this gospel he is not ashamed, knowing that by it the mighty power of God is manifested in the 
salvation of both Jews and Greeks, ver. 16. 

Here the introduction properly ends; inasmuch as the next verse exhibits one great theme of 
the epistle, and is the subject which gives occasion to all the remarks that follow, to the end of 
chap. v. 


The reader of Paul’s writings cannot fail to remark, how different 
was the mode of writing epistles in ancient times, from that which 
we now practise, in regard to some things pertaining to address, 


“ἢ subscription, &c. Paul prefixes his name, instead of subscribing it 


at the end of his letters, as we now do. In the like way, and after 


his exampk, the letters missive, &c., of churches to each other, are 


still drawn up among us. 


30 | ROMANS I, 1. 


(1) Παῦλος, probably a Roman and not a Hebrew name, 7. ¢, Pau- 
lus; compare the name of the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus, 
Acts xiii. 7, who became a convert to Christianity, through the in- 
strumentality of Paul. The Hebrew name of the apostle was ANY, 
Σαῦλος; and he is first called Παῦλος in Acts xiii. 9, immediately 
after the mention of Sergius Paulus. Hence many have thought, 
that Παῦλος is a name which the apostle took in honour of the procon- 
sul. The more natural explanation is, that Παῦλος was a second 
name of Roman origin, given him in accordance with the custom of 
the times. While the Jews were subject to the power of Seleu- 
cide on the throne of Syria, it was very common among them 
to adopt a second name of Greek origin; 6. 5. Jesus, Jason; Je- 
hoiakim, Alkimos, &c. So under the Roman power; Dostat, Dosi- 
theus; Zarphin, Trypho. A comparison of these will show, that 
in general the second name bore some resemblance in sound to the 
first. So Σαῦλος, Παῦλος. 

Δοῦλος means, in itself, one devoted to the service of another, one 
who is subject to the will or control of another. Of course it may 
import a station or condition which is in itself high or low, honour- 
able or dishonourable, according to the state or rank of the master. 
A servant of aman, %. ¢., of any common man, is a slave ; at least the 
word in its strict sense would import this. But the servants of a 
king may be courtiers of the highest rank, who count this title a 
matter of honour. (1) Servants of God is an appellation given to 
the prophets, Moses, Joshua, &c., Rey. x. 7. x1. 18. xv. 3. Deut. 
xxxiv. 5. Josh.i. 1. Jer. xxv. 4. Amos iii. 7; and in like manner the 
apostles and primitive preachers of the gospel are called the Ser- 
vants of Christ, Gal. i. 10. Phil. i. 1. Titus 1. 1. James i, 1. 2. 
Peter i. 1. Col. iv. 12. (2) Δοῦλος is also employed as meaning 
simply or principally a worshipper of Christ or of God, one devot- 
ed to his service ; for in such a sense we find the word employed in 
1 Peter ii. 16. Eph. vi. 6. Rev. vii. 3. Luke 11. 29. Acts iv. 29. 
Ps. cxiii. 1, al. 

Does the word δοῦλος here, as employed by Paul in respect to 
himself, indicate official station, like that of the ancient prophets 
and messengers of God mentioned under No. 1; or is it-employed 
in the second sense, in order to denote the apostle as one devoted to 
the service of Christ, one ready to obey him in all things, and to 
regard the promotion of his interests as the great object of his life ὃ 
Interpreted in this way, δοῦλος does not anticipate the meaning of 
ἀπόστολος. There is also a gradation in the sense. First, Paul is 


a eee ΨΥ ΣΎ τ ν 


Pee SRE SRE I AS RS, ee Γι γῇ, at pSEcs, 


ROMANS 1. 1. 31 


represented as being devoted to the service of Christ, and then as 
commissioned with a special office in that service; which could not 
be said of every δοῦλος. So Reiche and Glockler, in their recent 
Commentaries. 

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, in the Gen. here, shows the relation in which 
Paul stood to the Saviour, and that the apostle’s business or object (as 
δοῦλος) was to promote the cause of Christ or to forward his work. 
᾿Ιησοῦς is the Greek form of the Hebrew name 31 or of its later 
abridement and substitute 3%, ἡ, ¢., Saviour, or he who will save. 
Χριστός is properly a participial adjective, formed from χρίω, to 
anoint, and means the anointed one. It is, like κύριος, which is 
properly an adjective, usually employed by prefixing the article as 
an appellative, when applied to the Saviour, and commonly it de- 
signates him as king, or possessed of royal dignity. Kings were 
anointed to their office, among the Jews; and also high priests, 
The name Christ TWD, Χριστός, the Messiah, may refer then to 
either of these high offices or dignities; for he is both king and 
priest for ever. The use of χριστός alone in the Gospels, is hardly 
to be regarded in the light of a proper cognomen, but rather as a 
mere attributive appellation. In the epistles, it is not unfrequently 
used in the way of a proper cognomen. 

Κλητός, lit. called, but the meaning here is chosen, invited, viz., 
chosen to the office of an apostle; see Acts ix. 15, σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς 
μοί ἐστιν οὗτος, also Acts xxvi. 17, where the κλητός here is expressed 
by ἐξαιρούμενός σε, I have taken thee out of, I have selected thee from. 
In Gal. 1. 15, it is more fully expressed by ὁ ἀφορίσας we ἐκ κοιλίας 
ὠητρός μου, καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὑτοῦ, t. 6.5. Who set me apart or 
designated me from my earliest years for the apostolic office, and 
in due time called me to it by his grace; Jer. i. 5. The word 
κλητός sometimes has the sense merely of invited, bidden; e. g., Matt. 
xx. 16, xxii. 14. Yet in the writings of Paul it is not so used, but 
always in the sense of efficient calling, as we say, ὦ. ¢., it means not 
only that the person designated has been invited or selected, but 
that he has accepted the invitation; 1 Cor. i. 1, 2, 24. Rom. i. 6, 
7. viii. 28; with which collate Gal. 1. 1ὅ. Jude v. 1. Heb. iii. 1. 
Rom. xi. 29. Eph. iv. 1. 

᾿Απόστολος May mean a legate of any kind, one sent by another 
on any kind of business or message. ‘The word is used in this 
way, in John xii. 16. Phil. ἢ. 25. A divine messenger or prophet 
it designates in Luke xi. 49. Eph. in. 5. Rev. xviii. 20. 11. 2; and 
in like manner it also signifies the messengers of Christ, which is 


82 ξ ROMANS I. 1. 


the usual meaning of the word throughout the N. Testament. To 
invest them with this office, an immediate choice by the Saviour in 
person seems to have been necessary. ‘This is implied in our text ; 
and more plainly still in Gal. i. 1.—Occasionally the companions 
of the apostles, or the delegates sent by them, are called apostles ; 
so in 2 Cor. viii. 23. Acts xiv. 4, 14. Rom. xvi. 7. 

᾿Αφωρισμένος . . . . ϑεοῦ, lit. separated or set apart for the gos- 
pel of God, i. e., chosen or selected in order to preach the gospel of 
God, viz., that gospel of which God is the author, ϑεοῦ being Geni- 
tivus auctoris. The word ἀφωρισμένος seems to be intended as epex- 
egetical of χλητός, i. 6.7) it expresses the same idea in different lan- 
guage. Hesychius explains ἀφώρισμένος by ἐχλελεγμένος, chosen, 
διακεκριμένος, selected. In the same sense ἀφορίσατε occurs in Acts 
xiii. 2. See the same sentiment in Gal. i. 15, Jer i. 5. The 
meaning is, that God, who foreknows all things, did set him apart, 
choose, select him for the work of the gospel, even from the earliest 
period of his life, Gal. i. 15. So it is said of Jeremiah, that he 
was set apart, selected, for the prophetic office even before he was 
formed in his mother’s womb; by all which expressions is meant, 
that God who knows all persons and events before they exist or take 
place, has a definite object in view which he intends to accomplish 
by them. In classic Greek, the verb agogiZev is more usually em- 
ployed in a bad sense (in malam partem), meaning to exterminate, 
excommunicate, repudiate, &c. But in Hellenistic Greek it is 
more commonly employed iz bonam partem, as here. 

Εἰς εὐαγγέλιον has the same sense as εἰς τὸ ebayyerionodas εὐαγγέλιον, 
in order to preach the gospel.- This method of using the Acc. 
(with the preposition εἰς prefixed) as a nomen actionis, is a frequent 
idiom of Paul’s writings, and resembles the use of the Heb. Inf. 
(with a δ prefixed) as a nomen actionis. Ἐῤαγγέλιον itself is some- 
times employed to denote the preaching of the gospel; ὁ. g.. 1 Cor. 
iv. 15, ix. 14---Εὐαγγέλιον ϑεοῦ Chrysostom understands as meaning 
the gospel concerning God, viewing ϑεοῦ as Genitivus objecti. But 
this interpretation is plainly erroneous; for the object is supplied in 
ver. 3, Viz. εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ. . . . περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, Theophylact 
rightly explains the phrase: ὡς δωρηϑὲν παρὰ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, [the gospel] as 
given by God. For the sentiment that the gospel is of God, and 
that Christ taught it as received from him, let the reader compare 
John viii. 28, 38. v. 19, 80, xii. 49. xiv. 10, 24, xvii. 4—8. 

(2) “Ὁ σπροεπηγγείλατο. . .. ἁγίαις, which he formerly, or in for- 
mer times, declared or published by his prophets, in the holy Scriptures. 


ROMANS I. ὃ. 33 


In like manner, Paul in his defence before Agrippa says, that he 
had proclaimed nothing as a preacher of the gospel, which the pro- 
phets and Moses had not declared should take place, Acts xxvi. 22 
That Christ and all his apostles believed and taught, that the Old 
Testament abounds in prophecies respecting him, there can be no 
doubt on the part of any one who attentively reads the New Testa- 
ment; see Acts x. 43, xviil. 28. 1 Peter i. 10. 2 Peter i. 19. 

Even the heathen of the apostle’s time had become acquainted 
_ with the expectations of the Jews, in regard to the appearance of the 
Messiah ; which expectations were excited and cherished in the He- 
brews, by the perusal of their own ancient Scriptures. Thus Tacitus 
speaks of this subject; “ Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdo- 
tum literis contineri, eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret Oriens, pro- 
fectique Judea rerum potirentur,” Hist. V.13. In the same man- 
- ner Suetonius his contemporary expresses himself: “ Percrebuerat 
Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis, ut eo tempore 
Juda profecti rerum potirentur,” in Vespas.c.4. The first pro- 
mises respecting the Messiah were merely of a general nature, un- 
accompanied by peculiar and characteristic declarations; e. g. Gen. 
ili. 15, xii. 3, xvii. 4, 5, xlix. 10. In later times, it was foretold that 
the expected King and Deliverer would be of the progeny of David, 
2 Sam. vil. 16. Psalm lxxxix.35—37. In several Psalms, some traits 
of the life, office, character, and sufferings of this illustrious personage 
were given; viz. Psalm ii. xvi. xxii. xly. cx. etc.; still more graphi- 
cally is the Messiah described in Is, liii.; and individual occurrences 
in his history are given in later prophets, 6. g., Zech. ix. 9. xi. 13, 
Mal. ii. 1, seq. iv. 2, seq. It has been observed, that Malachi’s de- 
claration in the last chapter of his prophecy, is homogeneous with 
- the very first annunciation of the gospel in Mark i. 2. Our English 
version of προεπηγγείλατο, promised afore, does not give the proper 
meaning of the word. 

Ἔν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις, in the Holy Scriptures. The Jews employed 
either γραφή the singular, or γραφαί the plural, indifferently. The 
first means the corpus librorum sacrorum; the second refers to the 
same collection, as made up of several particular writings. The 
epithet ayia: is given to yeapa/, because the Scriptures were regarded 
as worthy of all reverence, or because they were looked upon as 
being inspired by τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. 

(3) Περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, respecting his Son. This clause should be 
joined, in the reader’s mind, to εὐαγγέλιον ϑεοῦ at the close of ver. 1. 

C 


94 ROMANS I. 3. 


Verse 2 is a circumstantial declaration, thrown in to enhance the 
value of the gospel, or its credibility and dignity. ‘There is no ne- 
cessity here of actually inserting a parenthesis, as some do, any 
more than in many other cases where explanatory circumstances 
are added in the like way. Tholuck joins περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ with 
προεπηγγείλατο; but as the verb itself relates to εὐαγγέλιον ϑεοῦ, it 
seems to me more congruous to refer weg) x. τ. A. to the same words. 
Τοῦ yevouévou.... σάρκα, who was born of the seed of David, in 
respect to the flesh. The verse itself is replete with difficulties; and 
especially so to one who is not familiarly conversant with the cha~ 
racter of Paul’s style. Tholuck compares the latter to the urgent 
‘ force of waves, which swell one above another in continual succes- 
sion. It is an obvious peculiarity of this apostle’s style, that he 
abounds in what are commonly called parenthesis. His mind was 
so glowing and so full of ideas, that the expression of a single word 
often calls forth, as it were, a burst of thought respecting the import 
of that word, which hinders him from advancing in the sentence that 
he had begun, until he has given vent to the feelings thus incident- 
ally occasioned. The expression of these feelings makes here what 
may be named parenthesis; although it may not always be designated 
as such in our printed books. To illustrate what I mean, let us 
take the examples in the first paragraph of the epistle before us. 
When Paul (ver. 1) had named the εὐαγγέλιον ϑεοῦ which would re- 
call to the minds of his readers the gospel that was then preached by 
himself and others, he immediately adds, in order to enforce on their 
minds a becoming idea of the dignity and excellence of this gospel, 
ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις" after which 
he resumes his subject. But no sooner has he uttered the words 
τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, than another burst of thought respecting the exalted 
personage thus named escapes from him. First, this Son is γενομένου 
. σάρχα, ἃ descendant of David, the most exalted king who 

ever occupied the Jewish throne, according to the promises respecting 
the Messiah, 6. g., in 2 Sam. vii. 16, Ps. lxxxix. 35—37. Secondly, he 
is τοῦ igitdévros . . .  νεχρῶν, ὃ, 6.} he isthe Son of God clothed, ac- 
cording to decree, with supreme dominion, especially in regard to the 
bestowment of the Holy Spirit, after his resurrection from the dead. 
Having thus designated some striking characteristics of the Son of 
God, he resumes his theme by the words ᾿Ιησοῦ .. . . ἡμῶν, which are 
in apposition with τοῦ υἱοῦ αὑτου in ver. 3. The words τοῦ χυρίου ἡμῶν 
again suggest another train of thought, which the writer stops 


ROMANS I. 3. 35 


to utter, viz. δὶ ov... . Χριστοῦ, after which he resumes his theme 
and finishes the sentence by πᾶσι τοῖς . . . . Χριστοῦ, ver 7. The 
greater part of this apparently involved sentence, might evidently 
be included in parenthesis; and then the simple sentence would 
run thus: Παῦλος... «. ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον ϑεοῦ περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ 
aired... ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν... .. πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν x. τ΄ A, 

Every reader should take especial notice of this characteristic in 
the writings of Paul, as it will help him to unravel many a sentence 
Ὁ which would otherwise seem perplexed and perhaps even irrelevant. 
To understand the writings of this apostle, something more than a 
knowledge of grammar or of mere words is necessary. We must 
be able to enter into the feelings and sympathies of the writer, and 
thus to trace his modes of thought and expression in cases that seem 
obscure, as well as in those which are plain, 

Τυνομένου, descended, born ; for so the word is not unfrequently em- 
ployed. —'Ex σπέρματος, of the posterity, of the lineage—Kard σάρκα, 
in respect to human nature or his jfleshly existence. Σάρξ denotes 
literally flesh, 4. ¢., the flesh of a living or animated being, in distine- 
tion from that of a dead one, which is xgéas. It dutintes, body also ; 
not in the sense of σῶμα which has reference to the compacting of 
the whole of the parts into one mass, but body as distinguished from 
mind, the visible part as distinguished from the invisible one. 
Hence it is very often used, both in the Old Testament and the New, 
for our animal nature, the animal man (so to speak). Frail, per- 
ishable man, also, and man with carnal appetites and passions, are 
often designated by it; as every lexicon willshow. As kindred with 
this, it often means man as living in his present fleshly and dying or 
transitory state, in distinction from another and different condition in 
‘a future world; so Gal. ii. 20. Phil. 1, 22, 21. Heb. ν. 7, applied to 
Christ. 1 Pet. iv. 2. 2 Cor. x. 3. In the passage before us, the 
human nature or condition of Christ, as descended from the royal 
progeny of David, is designated. But why so? Because the promise 
was made. to Devt that the Messiah should descend from him. 
Hence the ἀν: in Matthew: “The Son of David, the Son of 
Abraham.” So the common feeling and views of the Jews decided : 
“ How do they [the Scribes] say, that the Christ is David’s Son?” 
So the blind man (Luke xviii. 39) says: “ Jesus, thou Son of David, 
have mercy on me.” Comp. also Luke i. 27, 32. Matt. xv. 22. xii. 
23. xxi. 9. 15. xxii. 41—46. John vii. 42. 2 Tim. ii. 8; which most 
abundantly illustrate the views of the Jews and of the apostles. Itis 

c2 


36 7 ROMANS I. 4, 


not, therefore, merely a son of David which is designated by the 
phrase before us, but the long expected and hoped for Son of David, 
i. e., the promised Messiah. 

We must regard τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυΐδ κατὰ σάρκα, then, 
as a clause in opposition to υἱοῦ αὑτοῦ, added for the sake of point- 
ing out the fulfilment of the promises of God and the expectations 
of pious Jews, in regard to the Messiah or Son of God; a thought 
naturally suggested by what the writer had said before in relation 
to the declarations in the Scriptures. But lest the reader might 
argue that Son of David, considered as meaning Messiah, implied 
nothing more than one of David’s natural descendants in the 
ordinary way, Paul adds xar& σάρκα, in respect to his human na- 
ture ; where σάρξ is plainly employed in the same sense as in John 
1. 14, ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο, t. 6.5) the Logos became man, or took on him 
a human nature. But if the Son of God was a mere man, in the 
view of Paul, how strange it would be for him to say: γενομένου .. » 
κατὰ σάρχα ; an expression never used respecting any other indivi- 
dual. The application plainly is, that he had some other nature than 
the human. The same distinction is implied in Rom. ix. 5, ἐξ ὧν ὁ 
Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ odgxa. In his other nature, he is there said to be 
ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων ϑεός. 

Thus we have one special characteristic of the Son of God or of 
the promised Messiah, viz., that he was, as to his human nature, 
of the royal progeny of David. Now follows a second, of a more 
exalted and peculiar kind : 

(4) “Ορισθέντος . ... νεκρῶ. The word ὁρισϑέντος has often been 
rendered decreed, decided, ordained; so Calvius, Erasmus, Faber, and 
many others. In like manner the oldest Latin interpreters exhibit 
qui predestinatus est ; as appears from the Latin interpretation of 
Irenzus, III. 18, 32; from Rufin’s version of Origen, and Hilary 
De Trinitate, VII. In the like way, also, some recent interpreters 
have rendered égiSévrog. Of the former mode of translating we may 
truly say, that it accords with the meaning of the word ὁρίζω in Heb. 
iv. 7. Acts xi. 29. ii, 23. x. 42. xvii. 26, 31. Luke xxii. 22; and 
these are all the instances in which it is used in the New Testa- 
ment, excepting the case before us. 

But this sense of the word is alleged, by many critics, not to 
accord with the design of the writer. In order to prove this, they 
suppose the passage (by way of illustration) to be construed thus : 
« Ordained to be the Son of God with power, xara πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, 


ROMANS I. 4. 37 


z.e., by the miraculous gifts which the Spirit conferred upon kim, or 
by the miracles which the Spirit enabled him to perform ;’ and then 
ask, ‘ How did the miraculous gifts or deeds of Jesus ordain him 
to be the Son of God, or constitute him such? He possessed these 
gifts, or performed these miracles, because he was the Son of God; 
he was not made so by the possession cf his gifts or the performance 
of his deeds.’ And admitting their grounds of interpreting the rest 
of the verse, their objection seems to be decisive against the exe- 
~ gesis which they oppose. =~ 

Grotius, in order to relieve this difficulty with respect to ὁρισϑεντὸς, 
construes the passage thus: ‘ The regal dignity of Jesus, as Son of 
God, was predestinated, or prefigured, when he wrought signs and 
wonders in his incarnate state. But how. predestinating can be 
made to mean prefiguring, I am not aware. 

Others construe thus ; ‘ Ordained to be the powerful Son of God, 
in his pneumatic condition [or state of exaltation], by his resurrec- 
tion from the dead.’ But in this case we are compelled to ask: 
How could his resurrection decree or ordain his exalted state? It 
might be the consequence of a decree that he should be exalted; it 
was so; but in what manner the resurrection could ordain or de- 
cree his exaltation, it would be difficult to explain. 

There is yet another sense, in which the passage before us has 
been taken, viz., ‘ Constituted the Son of God with power, in his 
pneumatic condition, after his resurrection from the dead. For 
although he was-the Son of God before his resurrection, yet he was 
not the Son of God ἐν δυνάωει, in the sense here meant, until after his 
ascension to the right hand of the Majesty on high. 

One might hesitate, perhaps, between this sense and the one 
given by Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
(Ecumenius, the Syriac version, and the great majority of modern 
critics; vi.z ὁρισϑέντος-ε: δειχϑέντος, ἀποφανϑέντ' ος,κρίϑέντος, ὁμολογηϑέντος, 
shown, demonstrated, exhibited, declared. Of such a meaning for 
ὁρίζω, it is true, no example can be found in the New Testament, 
nor in the classics, which seems to be exactly in point. Passow gives 
no sense of this kind to ὁρίζω, in his lexicon. I find only one ex- 
ample (if indeed this be one) in the instances produced by Elsner, 
which will stand the test of scrutiny ; this is: ‘‘ A patron of what 
is just, δικαστὴν ὁρίζομεν γνήσιον, we calla true judge, or we declare to 
be a judge worthy of the name.” But even here, the sense of de- 
ciding, determining, defining, is altogether a good one, and equally 


38 ROMANS I. 4. 


good for ὁρίζομεν; and this agrees with the usual meaning of the 
word. Still, as ὁρίζω (from ὅρος) means literally to prescribe the 
boundaries or limits of any thing, and thus, by defining it, to dis- 
tinguish it from other things; so the secondary meaning given by 
Chrysostom, viz. δειχϑέντος, ἀποφανδέντος, declared, shown, is not an 
unnatural one, although destitute (so far as I can discover) of any 
actual usus loguendi to support it. The lexicon of Zonaras gives 
the same gloss to the word: ὁρισϑέντος---- ἀποδειχϑεντος, ἀποφανϑέντος. 

It is a safe rule, not to adopt the meaning of a word which is not 
supported by the wsus loquendi, when another meaning which is 
supported by it can be given, that will make good sense. And in 
the case before us it is as good sense to say, that ‘Christ was con- 
stituted the Son of God with power, after his resurrection from 
the dead,’ as to say, that ‘ Christ was shown to be the Son of God 
with power, after his resurrection from the dead.’ For after the 
resurrection, he was advanced to an elevation which, as Messiah, he 
did not before possess; com. Phil. 11, 9—11. Heb. i. 3. ii. 9. xii. 2. 
Rev. iii. 21. Matt. xix. 28. Nay one might say, that the more 
energetic meaning of the word is to be found in constituted. As 
an instance of the like sense, appeal has been made to Acts x. 42, 
where Christ is said to be ὁ ὡρισμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ Seod κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν, 
the constituted or appointed judge of the living and the dead. For 
the like sense of ὁρίζω, appeal is also made to Acts xvii. 31, ὥρισε, 
Sc. χριτήν, ὃ, &y he [God] hath constituted or appointed him [Christ] 
the judge, &c., comp. xvii. 26, ὁρίσας ... . καιροὺς. But of this 
meaning of ὁρίζω as applicable to Rom. i. 4, I now doubt (as will 
be seen in the sequel); although I formerly was disposed to adopt it. 

If we should construe the phrase, as some do: ‘ Declared to be 
the Son of God with power, by the Holy Spirit, on account of (by) 
his resurrection from the dead ;’ one might then ask: How could the 
resurrection declare in any special manner, that Christ was the 
Son of God? Was not Lazarus raised fromthe dead? Were not 
others raised from the dead, by Christ, by the apostles, by Elijah, and 
by the bones of Elisha? And vet was their resurrection proof 
that they were the sons of God? God did indeed prepare the way for 
universal dominion to be given to Christ, by raising him from the 
dead. ‘To the like purpose is the apostle’s assertion in Acts xvii. 31. 
But how an event common to him, to Lazarus, and to many others, 
could of itself demonstrate him to be the Son of God ἐν δυνάμει, re- 
mains to be shown. 


ROMANS I. 4. 39 


Nor have the reasons produced by Reiche in his recent commen- 
tary, and also by my friend, the Rev. A. Barnes, in his excellent little 
volume on the Romans, in favour of this interpretation, served to 
satisfy my mind of its validity. They both, with many others, un- 
derstand ἐν δυνάμε,, here as adverbially employed, and make it to 
qualify ὁρισθέντος, so that the meaning is, powerfully demonstrated 
or shown. Nothing, indeed, is more certain in grammar, than that 
the Dative case of nouns, either with or without a preposition before 

it, may be and often is employed i in an adverbial way; so that ἐν 
δυνάμει might easily be rendered in the same way as δυνάτως. My 
difficulties do not arise from this source, therefore, but from the 
‘unsuitableness of the application in this case. Had the apostle 
meant that ἐν δυνάμει should qualify ὁρισθέντος, all the usual prin- 
ciples of Greek construction and syntax would demand that he 
should have written, rod ἑν δυνάμει ὁρισϑέντος υἱοῦ, the place between 
the article and the participle being the appropriate one, in order to 
avoid ambiguity of sense or construction, when a noun is thus em- 
ployed. Then again, no example has beer produced, and I must 
doubt, until I see it, whether any can be produced, of the Greeks 
applying δύναμις to designate the force or strength of a logical de- 
monstration made only 1 to the mind. It always, certainly in the 
New Testament, has reference to the active force or energy ey of an 
agent, either corporeal or spiritual, when employed in such a way. 
The Greeks would characterize the demonstrative force of evidence 
or logic, in a very different way from this. The objections, there- 
fore, in point of grammatical construction and propriety of idiom, 
seem to me to be conclusive against such an exegesis. And the 
references by the commentators in question to Col. 1. 29, τὴν ἐνέργειαν 
αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐν δυνάμει and to Mark ix. 1, ἕως ἂν Ἰδώσι 
thy βασιλείαν τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐληλυϑῦιαν ἐν δυνάμει, do not give any satisfaction 
as to their application of ἐν δύναμμει in the case above, because here 
the δύναμις is that of agents, and not that of logic or evidence. The 
kingdom of God, of course means the persons who compose it, and 
ἐν δυνάμει the efficiency with which they act, or (at least) with which 
God himself acts, in building it up. 

Nor am I convinced, that the resurrection powerfully demonstrated 
Christ to be the Son of God, by the allegation (in order to remove 
an apparently formidable difficulty as stated above), that ‘in the eir- 
cumstances of the case, after all the special claims that Jesus had 
made to be considered as the Messiah, his resurrection was a signal 


40 ROMANS I. 4. 


proof that he was the Son of God.’ This it would do, however, only 
in an indirect way, and such an inference could be drawn from it 
only by virtue of reasoning from consequences. It proved only, 
that the claims of Jesus were allowed to be just and true. How 
could the power of God the Father, exerted to raise Christ from 
the dead, prove the divine or exalted nature of the latter? It 
proved only that God is Almighty, and he regarded with approba- 
tion the claims of Jesus. One of these claims was, that he was the 
Son of God; but this was only one among many others. How then 
could the whole force of the evidence to be drawn from the resur- 
rection, concentre in this sole point? And when Reiche asserts 
(p. 119), that “ Paul always appeals to the resurrection of Christ 
as the principal evidence of his divinity,” and refers us to Col. xv. 
3, 17. Rom. iv. 24. Acts xvii. 23, as proofs of this, one is tempted 
to ask, what is meant by evidence? These passages merely show 
that Christ was raiséd from the dead, in order to complete the work 
of mediation and redemption, and also to be the future judge of the 
world; nothing more: Nor is it inthe nature of things, that resur- 
rection from the dead can prove Godhead? Was it the Godhead 
that died, and was raised again; or was it the man Christ Jesus? 
How could the raising of the man by the Father, then, prove the 
Godhead of Christ? In whatever light I look at this interpretation, 
I feel constrained to reject it. Neither Paul nor any other New 
Testament writer makes the evidences of Christ’s divine nature, 
(or higher nature, if you choose so to name it), to depend on the 
resurrection ; at least this is done nowhere, unless it be in the pas- 
sage before us. Would it not be strange that this should stand 
entirely alone, in respect to such an important point as the inter- 
pretation in question makes it ? 

Let us now see whether a more defensible meaning than those 
above produced, can be given. 

I understand ὁρισθέντος in its usual (and only defensible) meaning, 
viz. decreed, appointed, established by decree, determined by decision, 
viz. of a superior, I find in this sense of the word a most expres- 
sive meaning in reference to Ps. ii. 7, which, I doubt not, the apostle 
had in his mind: “I will declare the decree, (phy IBDN) ; 
The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I be- 
gotten thee.” Here then is the decreed, destinated, or uppointed Son, 
to whom Paul refers, the very Messiah promised in one of the 
most explicit and striking predictions in all the Old Testament ; 


ROMANS 1. 4. 41 


comp. ver. 2, ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις. And what is the deeree of which 
the Psalmist speaks? It is, that the Son shall be made universal 
king, and that his enemies shall be dashed in pieces before him, 
Ps. il. 8—12; and all this not in a temporal but spiritual sense. 
What is this now but to be the Son of God ἐν δυνάμειξ And when 
Mr. B. suggests, that he knows of ‘no passage where δύναμις means 
authority, office, etc.’; he need only to consult Matt. xxvi. 64. Mark 
xiv. 62. Luke xxii. 69. Luke iv. 36. Acts iv. 7. 1 Cor. v. 4. Rev. 
xi. 2, iv. 11, v. 12. vii. 12. xii. 10, in order to correct this im- 
pression. It is even employed (by metonymy) for those in office 
and clothed with power, e. g.,1 Cor. xv. 24. Eph. i. 21; so for 
angels good or bad, who are high in station, Rom. viii. 38. 1 Pet. 
ii. 22. Matt. xxviii. 18, has πᾶσα ἐξουσία, not δύναμις, as he supposes ; 
a mistake into which the first edition of my work (p. 68) probably 
led him. 

It would be clear enough, then, that we might construe τοῦ 
δρισθέντος υἱοῦ Seod ἐν δυνάμει, as meaning ‘ the Son of God, who by de- 
cree is possessed of universal authority or dominion.’ My only 
doubt whether ἐν δυνάμει should be so construed here, arises from 
its junction with the next words; 

Κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, which, like every other expression in this 
verse, is contested, some translate, by the Holy Spirit; and some, 
by a holy spirit, i. 6.) a diyine and miraculous power, which some 
represent as the miraculous power with which Christ was endowed, 
and others as that which was shown in raising him from the dead. 
A third party construe πνεῦμα here, as designating the higher nature 
or condition of Christ, 7. ¢., his pneumatic nature or condition, if I 
may so express it. 

Schleusner, Flatt, Bengel, and others, find in ἁγιωσύνη a meaning 
designedly different from that of ἁγιότης or ἁγιασμός. Thus Bengel, 
“ ἁγιότης sanctitas, ἁγιασμός sanctificatio, ἁγιωσύνη sanctimonia.” 
But this seems to be imaginary; for even in Latin, sanctimonia and 
sanctitas differ only in form, not in sense. In Greek, as there is 
no difference between ἀγαϑοσύνη and ἀγαθότης, so there appears to 
be none between ἁγιωσύνη and ἁγιότης. The Seventy use ἁγιωσύνη 


for Y, strength, in Ps. xcvi. 6 (xcv. 6); for vip in Ps. xcvii. 
12 (xcvi. 12); and for "ἐπ in Ps. exlv. 5 (exliv. 5.). But as σνεῦμα 
is here joined with ἁγιωσύνης, I cannot well doubt that the word 


ἁγιωσύνης is employed in the place of the adjective ἅγιο, (like wip 


42 ROMANS I. 4. 


in ‘WIR, ἃς δ.) my holy mountain.) So the Gen. case of nouns is 
employed in almost innumerable instances. If we may conjecture 
a reason why the apostle here preferred ἁγιωσύνης to ἅγιον, we might 
say that it was because he wished to avoid the dubious meaning 
ἅγιον would seem to give to the passage, as the reader might na- 
turally refer such an epithet to the Holy Spirit as an agent. 

I cannot but regard it as quite certain, that xara πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης 
here, is employed in a similar way with κατὰ σάρκα in the preceding 
phrase. There xar& σάρκα shows in what respect, in regard to 
what Christ was the Son of David. Here xard σνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης 
shows in what respect the apostle means to set forth Christ as the 
decreed Son of God with power. Not that the mention of one 
leading particular in which his power was displayed, excludes the 
possession of other powers by him. So much only is meant, and so 
much is altogether true and striking, viz. that power in bestowing 
the σνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, t. 6.7 In causing the new moral creation, is one 
of the most conspicuous of all proofs that Jesus is indeed the de- 
creed Son of God, who was promised in ancient times, and predicted 
in the Holy Scriptures, by a declaration and an oath never to be 
forgotten. 

We shall see, in the sequel, more abundant reason for this inter- 
pretation. But we must first examine the meaning of ἐκ ἀναστάσεως 
νεχρῶν. This is another contested phrase. Many have rendered ἐξ 
by. So Chrysostom; who deduces from our verse three proofs 
which were exhibited in order to show the divine nature of Christ; 
viz. (1) Ἔν δυνάμει, i. e., the wonderful miracles which Christ 
wrought. (2) The gift of the Holy Spirit, κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης. 
(3) The resurrection. The difficulty with the first and third par- 
ticulars of his reasoning, is, that in the same manner prophets, apo- 
stles, and others may be proved to be divine, for the Saviour says that 
his disciples will perform “ greater works than he,” after his ascent 
to the Father; and many others were raised from the dead as well as 
Jesus. As to the gift of the Spirit, that will be noticed in the sequel. 
There can indeed be no doubt, that ἐκ (ἐξ) is, so far as this preposi- 
tion merely is concerned, susceptible of such an interpretation. It 
is often used in the sense of propter, ex, and designates the causa oe- 
casionalis; 6. g., John iv. 6, ‘ Jesus being wearied ἐκ τῆς ὁδοπορίας, so 
in Acts xxviii. 3. Rom. ν. 16. Rev. viii. 13; or it designates the 
causa instrumentalis, 1 Cor. ix. 14. 2 Cor, vii. 9. Rey. iii. 18. But, 


ROMANS I. 4. 43 


on the other hand, that ἐκ signifies after, since, in respect to time, is 
equally clear and certain; 6. 5.5 ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός, FROM the time of 
one’s birth; Matt. xix. 20, ἐχ νεότητος, FROM early youth; Luke viii. 
27, ἐκ χρόνων ἱκανῶν, α long time SINCE; xxiii. 8, John vi. 64, vi. 66, 
ix. 1, 82. Acts ix. 33, xv. 21. xxiv. 10. Rev. xvii. 11, é τῶν ετπά 
ἐστι, AFTER the seven; 2 Peter ii. 8.; comp. Sept. in Gen. xxxix. 10. 
Lev. xxv. 50. Deut. xv. 20.—So in the classics; Arrian Exped. 
Alex. I. 26. 3. ἐκ νότων σκληρῶν AFTER vehement south winds. III. 
15. 13. V. 25. 3. Hist. Ind. 88. 5. ἐκ τοσῶνδε κακῶν, AFTER so many 
evils. Xenoph. Res Greece, VI. ἐξ ἀρίστού arTER dinner. No doubt 
ean be left, then, that ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν may be rendered, AFTER 
the resurrection from the dead, or SINCE his resurrection, etc. So 
Luther, stint der Zeit er auferstanden ist, SINCE the time when he 
arose. | 

᾿Αναστάσεως νεχρῶν, moreover, is one of those combinations of the 
Gen. case with a preceding noun which express great latitude of 
construction. Here it is equivalent to ἀναστάσεως ἐκ νεκρῶν. Both 
phrases, viz. ἀνάστασις venga and ἀνάστασις ἐκ νεκρῶν, are used by 
the New Testament writers; 6. g., the first, in Matt. xxii. 31. 
Acts xvii. 32. xxiv. 21. xxvi. 23; and Paul limits himself to this 
same phraseology, 6. g., 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13, 21, 42. Heb. vi. 2; the 
second, in Luke xx. 35, Acts iv. 9. I can perceive no difference 
whatever in their meaning. In regard to the latitude in which the 
Genitive is employed, in order to designate relations which might 
otherwise be expressed by a preposition, see § 99 of my New Bee 
tament Grammar. 

The way is perfectly clear, then, to translate AFTER his resurrec- 
tion from the dead, so far as philology is concerned. Does the 
nature of the case admit or demand this? Itseems to my mind that 
it does. The manner in which the outpouring of the Spirit is spoken 
of, as connected with or following the resurrection and consequent 
glorification of Christ, appears to render this altogether probable, if 
not certain. Jesus, in promising a copious effusion of the Spirit, says, 
that “‘out of the belly [of believers] shall flow rivers of living wa- 
ters,” John vii. 38. The evangelist immediately adds, that “ he spake 


: this of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive, for 


the Holy Ghost was not yet given, BECAUSE JESUS WAS NOT YET 
GLORIFIED.” In entire accordance with this are the representations 
of the Saviour, in his last conference with his disciples; “If I go 
not away, the Comforter will not come unto you,” John xvi. 7, This 


44 ROMANS I, 4. 


Comforter was to come ajter the departure of Jesus; he was then to 
abide with the disciples (John xiv. 16); to teach them all things 
(John xiv. 26); to guide them into all the truth (xvi. 13); to tes- 
tify of him (xv. 26); and to convince the world of sin, of righteous- 
ness, and of judgment (xvi. 8—11). So on the great day of Pen- 
tecost (which the apostle would seem to have had in his eye when 
he wrote our text), Peter says, that the notable outpouring of the 
Spirit then experienced, was a fulfilment of the prophecy in Joel 
respecting this event; Acts 11, 14—21. Is. xliv. 3, refers to the like 
event. In looking at Acts i. 8, it would seem as if the very thing 
in our text is specifically designated by the words of Christ to his 
apostles : λήψεσθε δύναμιν ἐπελθόντος τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς. Here 
the δύναμις which Christ is to bestow by the sending of the Spirit, 
is expressly designated; and, as the sequel of the narration shows, 
it means an extraordinary and hitherto unknown effusion of the 
Spirit. All the subsequent history of the churches illustrates this. 
All the extraordinary revivals of religion that followed, were in con- 
sequence of the extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit which ensued 
upon the resurrection and glorification of the Saviour. 

The conclusion which I deduce from the whole is, that τοῦ ὁρισ- 
Sévrog υἱοῦ . . . . νεκρῶν means, that ‘Christ was the Son of God, 
agreeably to the decree in the Holy Scriptures, ἡ 6. (in Psalm ii. 7); 
and Son of God endowed with power, which he displayed by sending 
the Spirit in an extraordinary and glorious manner after his resur- 
rection and consequent exaltation.’ In this simple way, supported 
by the testimony of the Scriptures as to facts, and its usus loquendi 
as to meaning, would I explain this endlessly controverted verse, 
respecting which scarcely any two commentators of note wholly 
agree, and in regard to which, I am now persuaded, that I was in 
some respects mistaken in the first edition of this commentary. The 
ground of my mistake was, looking to a distance too great for ex- 
planatory facts and principles, when they lay near at hand. 

That the sense now given is far more noble and pregnant with 
meaning, than the simple declaration that Christ was shown to be the 
Son of God by his resurrection from the dead, can scarcely fail of be- 
ing felt by every reader. As now explained, the declaration of the apo- 
stle respects one of the highest, most striking, and most glorious of all 
the proofs that Christ was the true son of God. It means no less 
than to assert, that he was and is the author of the new creation, of the 


making of all things new, by the peculiar dispensation of his Spirit 


- ROMANS I. 4. 45 


after his glorification. That glorification was plainly commenced by 
his resurrection. Paul in his address in the synagogue at Antioch in 
Pisidia (Acts xiii.) explains the resurrection, indeed, as in part a ful- 
filment of the prediction in the second Psalm respecting the elevation 
of Jesus as the Son of God. And so it truly was; inasmuch as it 
was the commencement of his glorification. But the interpretation 
given above abates nothing from this. It is built on the very sup- 
position, that his resurreetion must precede the special δύναμις which 
he exercised, in pouring out the Spirit in an extraordinary manner so 
as to establish his new spiritual kingdom. In a word, as God at 
the beginning manifested his power and Godhead by creating the 
world from nothing, so the Son of God exhibited his all-glorious 
character in the new creation effected by the Spirit of holiness, dis- 
pensed by him in so peculiar a manner after his glorification, 
This is the highest evidence we can have of his being indeed the de- 
creed Son of God, and Saviour of Sinners. The whole expression, 
τοῦ ὁρίσϑέντος υἱοῦ. . . . νεχρῶν, serves to distinguish what Jesus mani- 
fested himself to be after his resurrection, in distinction from the 
development he made of himself before this period. Before the 
resurrection “he was anointed with the Holy Ghost and with 
power” (Acts x. 38); but “the Holy Ghost was not yet given [7. ὁ.) 
bestowed on men], because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John vii. 
38). It is in reference to the manifestation of what Jesus was en- 
dowed with, and in reference to the decree which respected his 
spiritual kingdom and reign (Ps. ii.), that the apostle speaks in our 
text. 

With this view of the subject, I cannot (with some expositors) 
regard κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης as designedly antithetic 
expressions. This indeed they cannot strictly be; inasmuch as 
both respect the same person. Nor can I now any longer regard 
them as a designed contradistinction; for to make out this, we 
must suppose that the one relates to his Awman person, and the 
other to his divine. It is indeed true, as I formerly maintained, 
that the Aigher and glorified nature of Christ (not simply his divine 
nature), is several times called πνεῦμα, (but not πνεῦμα ἅγιον nor 
πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης). ‘The reader may find instances of this nature in 
2 Cor. iii. 17, 18. Heb. ix. 14. 1 Cor. xv. 45. 1 Pet. iii. 18, and 
perhaps in 1 Tim. iii. 16. It is also true, that “decreed Son of 
God possessed of power in his glorified state,” would be a sense 
altogether accordant with fact and with the analogy of the Scrip- 


46 ROMANS 1.4. 


tures. But the interpretation given above now seems to me, after 
much consideration, to be better supported by the context and the 
intention of the writer; who designs to exhibit Christ as predicted 
in the Holy Scriptures, first as ‘the Son of David in respect to his 
human nature,’ and then as ‘the decreed Son of God in respect 
to the manifestations of his spiritual power in the new creation.’ 
Consequently, if this view be correct, we must understand zara 
σάρχα as explaining τοῦ γενομένου, by showing in what respect Christ 
was descended from David; and κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης as explaining 
in what respect the δύναμις of the decreed Son was peculiarly exer- 
cised so as to afford satisfactory evidence of his character and 
dignity. Not antithesis, then, nor even contra-distinction, is intend- 
ed between zara σάρχα and κατὰ «νεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, but simply the like 
construction is repeated in order to show a reference of the like 
nature in the two cases. Glockler, in his recent, original, and in 
many respects striking Commentary on the Romans, understands 
πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης in the same way as I have done, but he has missed 
the scriptural reference to Old Testament prophecy whichis contained 
in τοῦ ὁρισϑέντος υἱοῦ. He has therefore applied ἐν δυνάμει to ὁρισϑέντος, 
in the old way, and construes the κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης as proving 
the Godhead of Christ. Conseguentially, I should readily admit 
this; for who that is not divine, can dispense the Holy Spirit? 
But the object of the apostle here is not directly to prove the divine 
nature of Christ, but to show that he is the decreed and predicted 
Son of God, whom the Holy Scriptures had taught the Jews to 
expect. 

The phrase υἱοῦ ϑεοῦ, which stands connected with all the predi- 
cates that have now been explained, is one of high and holy import. 
If I rightly understand the meaning of it, it designates the Messiah, 
the King of Israel, the Lord of all, in the passage before us. Such 
was Christ constituted, after his resurrection from the dead, when 
he ascended to take his place οὐ the right hand of the Majesty on 
high, was made χληρονόμος révrwy, and copiously poured out the Spirit 
of holiness. But as this phrase is of such great importance, and re- 
quires to be copiously discussed, I must refer the reader to Excursus 
I, where he will find the discussion. 

The apostle having thus given his views respecting the dignity of 
Christ, he now resumes the theme mentioned at the beginning of 
ver, ὃ, Viz. τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, by adding the other usual appellatives of 
honour and office given to the Son: which are, ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ xv 


ROMANS I. ὅ. 47 


ρίου ἡμῶν. Κύριος is a word of deep interest to Christians. Applied 
to Christ, it properly denotes him as supreme Ruler or Lord, specially 
of his church. Matthew and Mark do not apply this title absolutely 
to Christ, except after his resurrection, Matt. xxviii. 6. Mark xvi. 
19, 26. But Luke, John, and Paul, apply it to him everywhere and 
often. With Paul the application seems to be in a manner exclusive. 
God the Father, or God absolutely considered, is named χύριος about 
thirty times, in the Old Testament passages which Paul cites; but 


elsewhere, with the exception of some four or five instances, Paul 


gives to Christ exclusively the title of κύριος or ὁ κύριος in more than 
two hundred and fifteen instances ; see Bibl. Repos. I. 783, seq. The 
article makes no difference in the meaning, inasmuch as the word is 
a kind of proper. name by usage, is employed in like manner as one, 
and may therefore take or omit the article at the pleasure of the 


writer. See the Essay on the meaning of the word κύριος, in the 


Bibl. Repos. as above, where the subject is examined at length. 

(δ) Ai οὗ. . .. ἄποστολήν, by whom we have received grace and 
the office of an apostle. Chrysostom, Grotius, and others inter- 
pret this as though it meant χάριν τῆς ἀποστολῆς, the favour or privi- 
lege of an apostolic office; t.e. they construe the last words as a 
hendiadys. Augustine says: “ Gratiam cum omnibus fidelibus 
accepit—apostolatum, non cum omnibus.” I prefer to separate the 
meaning of the words. As to χάρις, I consider it as having refer- 
ence to the peculiar grace bestowed on Paul, who had been a per- . 
secutor; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9, 10. Gal. i. 13—16. 1 Tim. i. 12—16, 
which seem to make this clear. As to ἀποστολή, comp. Acts ix. 15. 
xii. 2. xxii. 21; also the passages just cited above. 

Eis ὑπακοὴν πίστεως, on account of the obedience of faith. Eis, 
followed by an Acc., in almost innumerable instances designates 
the object or end for which any thing is, or is done. The idea 
here is, that the office of an apostle had been given to Paul, ‘in 
order that (εἰσ) he should further or promote obedience to the 
faith, 7. ¢., to the gospel; or (as we should here construe πίστεως) 


_ the obedience of faith, viz. that which springs from subjective or in- 


ternal faith. 1 prefer this latter sense, as being on the whole the 


_ most energetic. It seems to me probable, that the apostle meant 


to designate the obedience of faith as contra-distinguished from legal 


obedience. 


Ἔν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔϑνεσι, among all nations ; ἐν among, a common sense 
of the word, see Bretchn. Lex. ἐν, "Ἔϑνεσι may be rendered Gen- 


48 ROMANS I. 6, 7. 


tiles here, inasmuch as Paul was “the apostle of the Gentiles :” 
but the expression seems to be more general. He seems to say, 
that he received the office of an apostle, in order that the gospel 
might be preached to all nations, to Gentiles as well as to Jews. 

"Yoreg τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, for his name’s sake, which means on his 
account. But with what is this to be joined? Does the apostle 
mean to say, that he had received χάριν καὶ ἀποστολήν on his 
[Christ’s] account ; or does he join the latter expression with εἰς 
ὑπαχοὴν πίστεως, and thus designate the following sentiment, viz. 
that ‘obedience springing from Christian faith may be promoted 
among all nations, so that Christ may be glorified?’ In this latter 
way I should prefer to interpret it; and so Tholuck has done in 
his Commentary, as also Castalio and others. 

(6) Ἔν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς, among which [nations are ye Ro- 
mans]. The writer means to say; ‘Among those nations are ye 
who have been won over to obey the Christian faith. So the 
sequel: xAnroi ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, the called of Jesus. Christ, i. e., the 
called who belong to Christ. Κλητός (see on the word under ver, 
1) means, by the usage of Paul, not only those to whom the ez- 
ternal call of the gospel has been addressed, but those who have 
also been internally called; in other words, it designates effectual 
calling. My reason for supposing I. Χριστοῦ here to be a genitive 
which designates belonging to, rather than a Genitivus agentis (in 
which case it would signify of or by Christ), is, that the usual 
idiom ascribes the calling of sinners to Christ, as effected by the 
agency of the Father, or of the Holy Spirit. Κλητοὶ 1. Χριστοῦ, 
according to the interpretation now given, would mean ‘ Christians 
effectually called.’ So Tholuck, Reiche, and others. 

(7) Πᾶσι... .. ϑεοῦ, to all who are at Rome, beloved of God; 
i. @.y to all these λέγω, γράφω, I say what follows in the sequel, viz. 
Χάρις ὑμῖν, &c. Iam inclined to think, that in saying ἐν Ρώμῃ," the 
apostle meant to include not only the Christians who habitually 
dwelt there, but also Christians from abroad, more or less of whom 
must have frequented that great city. Such was the concourse of 
Greeks there in Juvenal’s time, that he calls it Grecam urbem 
Christian foreigners who were in the city, no doubt would attend 
worship with the church which belonged there ; so that the apostle 
might well address the whole body of those who joined in Chris- 
tian worship. Still the language, πᾶσι....ἐν "Pon, does not take 
this supposition certain. 


ee eee 


ROMANS I. 7. 49 


᾿Αγαπητοῖς Seod beloved of God; an appellation often bestowed 
on the ancient people of God, or at least implied by what is said 
concerning them, and which Paul here applies to Christians, the 
true Israel οἵ God. ‘They are the objectsof God’s love, because they 


-are his children by a new and spiritual birth, because they bear his 


image, and also because they possess a filial and obedient spirit. 

Κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, chosen saints, or saints effectually called. So 
most editions and commentaries unite these words, making κλητοῖς 
an adjective qualifying ἁγίοις" and so I have translated them. This 
may be correct, inasmuch as the apostle had just before called 
them κλητοὶ 1. Χριστοῦ. If this union of the two words was intended 
by him, they mean as much as tosay, called or chosen to be holy 
or to be consecrated to God, to be devoted to him. In the mean time; 
it is evident that the words may be pointed thus, κλητοῖς, ἁγίοις, to 
those who are called, who are devoted to Christ. ‘The sense is sub- 
stantially the same, whichever way we choose to interpret the words, 

As to the appellations ἀγωπητοῖς Jeol, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, the reader 
may compare the terms of honour and affection given to God’s an- 
cient people, in Exod. xix. 6. Deut. xxxiii. 3. xxxii.19; with these 
compare also 1 Pet. 11. 9, 1 Tim. ui, 15. Phil. ii. 15. 1 John iii. 1, 
2, 10. v. 1. given to Christians in the New Testament. 

Χάρις iwi, sc. ἔστω, may grace be wnparted to you! Χάρις I un- 
derstand as meaning every Christian grace and virtue, which the 
Spirit of God imparts to the followers of Christ; divine favour in 
the most extensive sense, but specially in the sense of spiritual bless- 


ings.—Eigqvn, like the Heb pi2v’ means happiness of every kind, 
peace with God and man, and so a state of quiet and happiness, 
The same word (b>) is used, down to the present hour, among the 
oriental nations who speak the Shemitish languages, as an appro- 
priate expression in their formulas of greeting or in expressing their 
good wishes. 

Hargis ἡμῶν, t. 6.. the Father of all Christians, of you and me. 
So Christ has taught his disciples when they approach God in 
prayer, to say πάτερ ἡμῶν.-- Κυρίου, see under ver. 4. One would na- 
turally expect the article here, before the monadic nouns ϑεοῦ and 
κυρίοῦ.. But nothing is more common than to omit it before such nouns, 
when frequently employed, and where there is no danger of mistake. 
See N. Test. Gramm. ὃ 89, 2. a. 6. More common is it to employ 
the article before an epexegetical appellative in apposition, like πατρὸς 
ἡμῶν in the present case.- But even here the practice is not uni- 

D 


δ0ὺ υ ROMANS I. 8. 


form; and moreover the article before σατρύς in the present case might 
be dispensed with also, on the ground that ἡμῶν sufficiently marks 
its definitive nature; N. Test. Gramm. § 89. 6, comp. p. 3. 

It should be remarked here, that in this prayer or wish Paul seems 
to take it for granted, that the blessings for which he asks, come as 
really and truly (not to say as much) from the Lord Jesus Christ as 
from God our Father. To the one then he addresses his prayer, as 
well as to the other. 

The reader, in looking back on what he has now read, will find 
the whole paragraph exceedingly characteristic of the manner in 
which Paul often writes. With regard to the parenthetic explana- 
tions or remarks in ver. 3, 4, (see the remarks on the course of 
thought in these verses, under ver. 3), we have seen that they were 
occasioned by the association of ideas in the writer’s mind, which 
were connected with the mention of τοῦ υἱοῦ αἰτοῦ. So in respect to 
ver. 5. and 6 again; they were evidently suggested to the mind by 
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, In ver. 4. Having expressed the thoughts which 
κυρίου thus spontaneously suggested, the writer again resumes the 
direct address or salutation which he was making: πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν 
κι τ. Δ. Thewords necessarily connected in the paragraph stand thus: 
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. . « « Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου nud... . πᾶσι τοῖς 
οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ x. 7.2.3 80 that the whole seven verses make but one 
sentence, which is grammatically connected together. In this are 
three parentheses, if we count ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ 
ἐν γραφαΐς ἁγίαις as one; Which wemay do. ‘This is an unusual num- 
ber, even for Paul, in one sentence. Yet the characteristic of style 
developed by it is often to be seen, more or less, in the works of this 
distinguished apostle. 

(8) The apostle now proceeds tothe expression of his kind feel- 
ings and wishes toward the Church at Rome, in order to prepare the 
way, as it was natural for him to do, to be the more kindly listened 
to by them. Πρῶτον in the first place, first of all, viz. before I 
speak of other things. It does not here mean /ir'st in point of import- 
ance, but first in order of time.—Miy Bretschneider (Lex.) considers 
as here placed absolutely, 7. e., without its usual corresponding δέ; for 
he says: “ No δεύτερον follows,” ὃ, 6.. no ‘additional clause connected 
with δέ, But in this I think he is mistaken. For the apostle, after 
two paragraphs in his usual manner, which begin with γάρ (illustra- 
ting and confirming first what he had said in ver. 8, and then what he 
had said in ver. 10), proceeds to the δεύτερον of his declarations in 


ΓΟ, ΙΝ ae Υ Al hl re” ει τ ον ἢ 


+e ee 


~~ 


ROMANS IL 9. 51 


ver. 13, viz. οὐ ϑέλω δέ ὑμᾶς κι τ. λ. Thatis, first the apostle thanks 
God for their faith, &c.; and secondly, he is desirous to tell them how 
much he has longed to pay them a visit, &c. Reiche denies that μέν in 
ver 8 and δέ in ver. 13. can stand in relation to each other. But in 
this he is not supported by the principles of philology. Mé and δέ 
stand not only at the head of antithetic and discrepant clauses, but 
also before those which express a difference of one thought from 
another, and so in the room of our /irst, secondly, &c. See Passow’s 
Lex. μέν. 

Τῷ ϑεῷ μου, my God; the Christian religion which teaches us to 
say πάτερ ἡμῶν, allows us to say ᾿ϑεός μου.---τι διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, per Chris- 
tum, auxilio Christi, interventi Christi, ἐ, e., through, by, or in conse- 
quence of, what Christ has done or effected ; in other words, Christo 
adjuvante, Deo gratias ago respectu vestriim omnium, ut fides ves- 
_tra, ὅδ. The meaning seems to be, that as a Christian, as one on 
whom Chyist has had mercy, and who has now a Christian sym- 
pathy for others beloved of Christ, he thanks God for the pros- 
perous state of the Church at Rome. διὰ I. Χριστοῦ may also be 
joined with 32% μου, and the sense be thus given: ‘I thank God, 
who’is my God through what Jesus Christ has done for me; to 
him I belong as one of his, through the intervention of Christ. So 
Gléckler. Barnes construes διὰ 1. Χριστοῦ as pointing out the me- 
dium through which the thanks of the apostle were offered. This 
is altogether consonant with the Christian economy ; but it does 
not seem to me to be the most natural sense of the passage. 

“Ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν, on account of you all; not for you in this sense, 
viz. in your room or stead.—IlVoris ὑμῶν, your Christian belief, your 
faith in the gospel. —"Orw τῷ κόσμῳ, i. 6.) through the Roman empire. 
Κόσμος and οἰκουμένη are frequently dead in a limited sense, like the 


YS and 637 of the Hebrews. Nothing is more natural than to 
suppose, that the faith of the Church at Rome might have been 
widely known or reported, in consequence of that great city being 
frequented by strangers from all parts of the empire. 

(9) Μάρτυς yao .... ϑεός, for God is my witness. Τάρ explican- 
tis et confirmantis ; ὦ. e., the apostle unfolds and confirms, in the 
following sentence, the evidence of his strong sympathies with them, 
and of his gratitude to God on their account. The reason why 
he here makes the appeal to God scems to be, that, as he was 
a stranger in person to the Church at Rome, they might otherwise 
think his expressions to be merely those of common civility. 


- 


52 3 ROMANS I. 10. 


ὯΩ, λατρεύω. 2. . αὐτοῦ, whom I serve in my soul (sincerely) in the 
gospel of his Son. ’Ev τῷ πνεύματί wou I understand as designating 
sincerity, t. 6.. real, internal, spiritual devotedness, in distinction 
from what is merely external or apparent. The apostle means 
to say, that he was sincerely and really devoted to the cause which 
he professed to love and to promote: comp. Phil. iii. 3. 2 Tim.i. 3. 
Eph. vi. 6. Rom. ii. 28, 29. 7 

Ἔν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ may mean, by the preaching of the 
gospel which has respect to his Son; more probably it means, in the 
gospel which has respect to his Son, comp. ver. 2; or it may mean 
the gospel of which his Son ts the author, and which he taught me. 
See, on the various meanings of the Gen. case, New Testament 
Grammar ὃ 99. That ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ does not here refer to the 
preaching of the gospel, but to living spiritually according to its 
precepts, seems rather more probable because of the ἐν τῷ πνεύματί μου 
which precedes, and which seems to define the kind of ggrvice ren- 
dered by the apostle. However, the other sense is allowable, al- 
though Reiche is strenuous against 1{.--τοίΩς ἀδιαλείπτως... ποιοῦμαι, 
how unceasingly I make remembrance of you. This shows the 
intense zeal which the apostle cherished for the welfare of the 
Christian Churches; for if he thus constantly interceded with God 
for the Church at Rome, which he had never visited, we cannot 
suppose that he forgot other churches which he had been the instru- 
ment of establishing. How different a phase would the Christian 
Church speedily assume, if all its ministers were now actuated with 
the same degree of zeal which Paul exhibited! Moot, 7 make to 
myself, Midd. voice. 

(10) Πάντοτε. . . . δεόμενος, always making supplication in my 
prayers; which is confirming what he had said before, ἀδιαλείπτως 
μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιοῦμαι, and at the same time pointing out the manner in 
which he made this μνείαν, viz., in his supplications before God. 
"Esl τῶν προσευχῶν μου means, literally, during my prayers, or when 
I pray. Gléckler; ‘In addition to my other prayers, I also ask 
this,’ &c.; which is unnecessary. 

Εὔπως *.. . ὑμᾶς, [that] if possible, at some time before long, I 
may (God willing) make a prosperous journey, and come to pay 
you a visit, Eixwg expresses a degree of uncertainty which hung 
over the future, in the writer’s own mind, ἐν 6.7 it means perhaps, if 
possible, if in some way, if by any means. “Hon, followed by the 
Future, means mow, brevi, by and by, soon, before long. Tort ali- 


ἊΝ ὗς Νά “ν΄. 


ἀν τι 


ROMANS I. 1]. 53 


quando, tandem, at last, at some time, at some future period; (πότε, 
with the accent on the penult,means when.) Both the words ἤδη 
and ποτέ, have often nearly the same meaning when connected with 
a future tense. ‘They may be here rendered thus: ἤδη, moz, be- 
fore long; ποτέ, at least, at some time, or at some future period ; so 
in the version, where I have given to each word its own particu- 
lar and appropriate meaning, merely reversing the order, because 


of our English idiom. 


EvodwIjoowas means, to make a pleasant or prosperous journey. 
A journey to Rome, which the apostle so ardently longed to visit, 
would in itself of course have been a pleasant one.— Ev τῷ ϑελήματι τοῦ 
S08, ὦ, 6.7) Deo volente. Grotius renders the passage very happily : 
Si forte Dei voluntas felicitatem mihi indulgeat ad vos veniendi. 

(11) reg, in this verse, precedes a sentence designed to illustrate 
and confirm the declaration which Paul had just made, viz., that 
he felt a deep interest for the Church at Rome, and hoped yet to’ 
enjoy the pleasure of visiting them.—"Iva τι... πνευματικόν, that [ 
may impart to you some spiritual favour or gift. Bengel, Michaelis, 
and others, interpret χάρισμα πνευματικόν, as Meaning, miraculous 
gift, such as the apostles sometimes imparted by the imposition 
of hands. Augustine understands by the same words, the love of 
one’s neighbour, supposing that the Jewish Christians at Rome were 
deficient in this virtue. But in ver. 12, the apostle expresses his ex- 
pectation of receiving on his part a benefit like to that which he bestows 
on them; so that both of these methods of explanation seem to be 
fairly out of question. What he expected from them, was συωπαρα- 
HANINVEOL » .. «.. διὰ τῆς ἐν ἀλλήλοις πίστεως᾽ Consequently this was 
what he expected to do jor them, viz., to encourage, animate, and 
strengthen them in their Christian profession and virtues. He 
speaks of a spiritual gift, as characteristic of the graces of the gos- 
pel, of which the Spirit is the efficient author, and as differing from 
common gifts of a worldly nature, often bestowed by friends who 
pay visits to each other. 

So the latter part of our verse: εἰς τὸ στηριχϑῆναι ὑμᾶς, that you 
may be confirmed, viz.,in the manner stated above. Nor does it 
follow, that the apostle viewed the Church at Rome as weak in faith, 
because he says this; unless we say that he was himself weak in 
faith, because he expects the like advantage of confirmation from 
his intercourse with them. Faith that is already strong, and 
Christian virtue that is conspicuous, are capable of becoming still 


δά ROMANS 1. 12. 


more so; and therefore expressions of this nature are never applied 
amiss, even to Christians of the highest order. The apostle “ did not 
as yet count himself to have attained” all that elevation of Chris- 
tian character of which he was capable, and which it was his duty 
to attain; Phil. iii. 13, seq. 

(12) Τοῦτο δέ ἐστι, that is, id est, prefixed to an epemegesis, or an 
ἐπανόρ)ϑωσις (correction) as the Greeks named explanatory clauses 
of such a nature as that which now follows. The apostle, lest the 
meaning of the preceding declaration might be misconstrued, adds 
(in ver. 12) the more full expression of his sentiment. He does not 
mean to assert, that the consequence of his visiting Rome would be 
merely their confirmation in the Christian faith, and so the advan- 
tage be all on their side; but he expects himself to be spiritually 
benefited by such a visit; and this he fully expresses in ver. 12. 
The remark of Calvin on this passage is very striking and just; 
“See with what gentleness a pious soul will demean itself! It 
refuses not to seek confirmation even from mere beginners in know- 
ledge. Nor does the apostle use any dissimulation here; for there 
is none so poor in the Church of Christ, that he cannot make some 
addition of importance to our stores. We, unhappily, are hindered 
by pride from availing ourselves properly of such an advantage.” 
How very different is the spirit and tenor of this remark from that 
of Erasmus, who calls the expression of the apostle, pia vafrities et 
sancta adulatio! 

Συμπαραχληθῆναι ... . ἐμοῦ, to be comforted among you by the 
mutual faith both of you and me. παρακληθῆναι, in Attic Greek, 
means to call, to invite, to. exhort. But in Hellenistic Greek, it not 
only means to exhort, but specially to address one in such a way as 
to administer comfort, encouragement, hope, resolution, &e. I 
have rendered the word comfort, only because I cannot find any 
English word which will convey the full sense of the original.— 
Ἔν, among; and so, oftentimes; see the lexicons.—'Ey ἀλλήλοις, 
placed between the article and its noun, is of course employed in 
the manner of an adjective, i. ¢., it means mutual._— Ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ 
seems to be a repetition of the idea conveyed by ἐν ἀλλήλοις. ‘This 
repetition is intensive, and denotes the strong desire which the 
apostle entertained, to be understood by the Church at Rome as 
saying, that he expected good from them, as well as hoped that they 
might receive good from him. 

(13) The apostle had already signified his desire to visit Rome, 


ROMANS I. 13. 55 


vers. 10, 11. - But here he proceeds to show how de/initely and fre- 
quently he had cherished such a desire; which gives intensity to 
the whole representation. 

Οὐ ϑέλω δὲ. . . . ὑμᾶς, moreover, I am desirous, brethren, to have 
you know, that I have often purposed to come to you. Aé in this pas- 
sage I regard as corresponding to μέν in ver. ὃ, and so making the 
τὸ δεύτερον or apodosis of the apostle’s discourse ; see the note on ver. 
8. Οὐ ϑέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν is the same in sense as ϑέλω ὑμᾶς γινώσκειν ; 
_but the first form of expression (in a negative way), is what the 
Greeks call λιτότης, 7. 6.) a ine or idee form of expression than 
direct affirmation. : 

Πολλάκις προεϑέμην, 1 a often purposed; comp. Acts xix. 21. 
Rom. xv. 23, 24. How often the apostle had purposed this, we 
have no means of ascertaining. But one thing is clear from this 
and many other like passages, viz., that the apostles were not uni- 
formly and always guided in all their thoughts, desires, and pur- 
poses, by an infallible Spirit of inspiration. Had this been the 
case, how could Paul have often purposed that which never came 
to pass? Those who plead for such a uniform inspiration, may 
seem to Le zealous for the honour of the apostles and founders of 
Christianity ; but they do in fact cherish a mistaken zeal. For if 
we once admit, that the apostles were uniformly inspired in all 
which they purposed, said, or did; then we are constrained of 
course to admit, that men acting under the influence of inspiration, 
may purpose that which will never come to pass or be done; may 
say that which is hasty or incorrect, Acts xxii. 3; or do that 
which the gospel disapproves, Gal. ii. 13, 14, But if this be once 
fully admitted, then it would make nothing for the credit due to 
any man, to affirm that he is inspired ; for what is that inspiration 
to be accounted of, which, even during its continuance, does not 
guard the subject of it from mistake or error? Consequently those 
who maintain the uniform inspiration of the apostles, and yet ad- 
mit (as they are compelled to do) their errors in purpose, word, and 
action, do in effect obscure the glory of inspiration, by reducing in- 
spired and uninspired men to the same level. 

To my own mind nothing appears more certain than that inspira- 
tion in any respect whatever, was not abiding and uniform with the 
apostles or any of the primitive Christians. To God’s only and 
well-beloved Son, and to him only, was it given to have the Spirit 
ἀμετρῶς OY οὐ ἐκ μέτρου, John iii. 84, All others on whom was be- 


56 ROMANS I. 14. 


stowed the precious gift of inspiration, enjoyed it only ἐκ μέτρου. 
The consequence of this was, that Jesus “knew no sin, neither 
was guile found in his mouth ;” but alk his followers, whenever they 
were left without the special and miraculous guidance of the Spirit, 
committed more or less of sin and error. 

This view of the subject frees it from many and most formidable 
difficulties. It assigns to the Saviour the pre-eminence which is 
justly due. It accounts for the mistakes and errors of his apostles. 
At the same time, it does not detract in the least degree from the 
certainty and validity of the sayings and doings of the apostles, 
when they were under the special influence of the Spirit of God. 

Καὶ ἐκωλύϑην . . . δεῦρο, but have been hindered until now.—Kai al- 
though or but ; Bretschn. Lex. κα, III. “ ex Hebraismo, καί set par- 
ticula adversativa, sed, vero, at ;” of which he gives many exam- 
ples. The well-known power of } to stand before a disjunctive clause, 
throws light on this usage; which is very unfrequent in classic Greek. 
It cannot be truly said, in cases of this nature, that καί (or 1) properly 
signifies but ; yet it may be truly said, that χαὶ (1) connects sen- 
tences, or clauses of sentences, whose meaning is adversative or dis- 
junctive. The conjunctive office consists im connecting the sen- 
tences, or parts of them; the disjunctive sense lies in the nature of 
the propositions. We may lawfully translate ad sensum, in such 
cases, and so render χα (Ὁ) but, although. 

Ἵνα twa... . ἔθνεσιν, that I may have some fruit even among you, as 
also among other Gentiles ; i. e., that I might see my labours to 
promote the gospel crowned with success even at Rome, the capi- 
tal of the world, as well as in all other places where I have preach- 
ed. Comp. John xv. 16, iv. 36—38. Phil. i. 11. Col. i. 6. 

(14) “Ἕλλησί τε. . . . εἰμί, 1 am indebted both to Greeks and 
Barbarians, to the learned and the ignorant ; 1 6.) ὀφειλέτης siui εὐαγγε:- 
λίξεσϑαι, 1 am under obligation to preach the gospel; comp. 1 Cor. 
ix. 16. 2 Cor. ii. 6. iv. 5. In classic usage, βάρβαροι means all who 
spoke a language foreign to the Greek; 1 Cor. xiv. 11. Acts xxviii. 
2,4. Ofcourse, the Romans themselves, by this usage, would be 
named βάρβαροι" and so Philo constantly names them; and Plautus 
himeelf calls the Latin language barbara lingua, and Italy barbaria, 
But here the question with the apostle seems not to be in respect 
to language, but only in regard to circumstances and state of 
knowledge. “Ἕλλησι, therefore, appears to be equivalent to σοφοῖς, 
and βαρβάροις to ἀνοήτοις. Considered in this way, Ἕλλησι καὶ βαρβά- 


ROMANS I. 15. 57 


gos mean the polished or unpolished, or the learned and ignorant, 
‘or (to use the idiom of the present day) ‘the civilized and the 
savage.’ 

Σοφοῖς re καὶ ἀνοήτοις Should be regarded here as characterizing the 

state of knowledge, rather than the state or measure of the facul- 
ties of men thus designated. Learned and unlearned is a version 
ad sensum. 
_ Stillifany one choose toconsider the two couplets here as designa- 
ting, the first those who spoke Greek and those who did not, the second 
the learned and the ignorant, be they of whatever nation they 
might be; and so the whole to be designed simply as expressing 
with force and by specific language the general idea of obligation 
to preach to all nations and classes of men without distinction, he 
will not wander far from the mark. This is the most simple and 
natural view of the subject. Glockler joins “Ἑλλησι re καὶ Βαρβάροις 
with the preceding ἔθνεσι ; invita Minerva. 

(15) Tholuck finds much difficulty in the οὕτω of the clause which 
follows; and after discussing it at some length, comes to the con- 
clusion, that the apostle has here “ fallen out of his construction,” 
inasmuch as the nature of his sentence requires that χαϑώς should 
be placed before “Ἑλλησι, in order to make out the comparison: 
But I do not feel this difficulty. Surely οὕτω or οὕπως often stands 
alone, without a preceding καϑώς or ὥσπερ as any one may see by 
opening a lexicon or concordance. Οὕτω is often employed in this 
way, in the sense of similiter, simili modo, eodem modo, in the like 
way, in such a way, ina similar manner, in the same manner. ‘Thus 
in Matt. v. 16. vii. 17. xviii. 14. Mark xiii. 29. xiv. 59. Luke xiv. 
33, et. sepe alibi. What hinders now that we should understand it,’ 

in the verse before us, in the same way? ‘Iam under obligation, 
says the apostle, ‘ to preach the gospel [for εὐαγγελίσασθαι is implied 
in the first clause] to all classes of men.’ What then? ‘So, ἡ. ¢,, 
circumstances being thus, J am ready (τὸ κατ᾿ ἐμὲ πρόθυμον) to preach 
the gospel even to you who are at Rome. Ifthe reader does not 
think that the above references go so far as to give to οὕσω the 
sense here assigned to it, viz., matters being thus or circumstances 
being thus, or I being in this condition, he may turn to John iv. 6, 
where it is said : “ Jesus being weary on account of his journeying, 
ἐκαθέζετο οὕτως ἐπὶ τῇ πηγῇ»; he sat down in this condition upon the 
well, viz., in a state of wearmess. All the attempts that I have 
seen to give οὕτως any other sense, seem to be in vain. Compare 


58 ROMANS I. 15, 16. 


also Rey. iii. 16, “I would thou wert either cold or hot! Οὕτως, so,” 
i. ¢., the matter being thus, “since thou art neither cold nor hot, I 
will spue thee out of my mouth.” In like manner in the text before 
us; οὕτω, ‘the matter being thus, viz., it being true that I am under 
obligation to preach to all classes of men, I am ready to preach at 
Rome;’ or, ‘since I am bound in my duty to preach to all, in ac- 
cordance with this (οὕτω) I am ready to preach the gospel at Rome. 
If καθώς were placed before “Ἕλλησι, as Tholuck and others judge it 
should be, the sentiment would be thus: ‘In proportion to my 
obligation to preach to all men, is my readiness to preach at Rome;’ 
a sentiment which, although doubtless true, does not seem to me to 
be the one which the apostle means here to convey. It is more 
simple to understand him as saying: ‘ Since I am bound to preach 
to all, in accordance with this obligation I am ready to preach 
even at Rome (καὶ iui), formidable and difficult as the task may 
seem to be. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 16. In this view of οὕτω I find 
Reiche, in his recent work, fully to agree. 

Τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πρόθυμον, [lit. there is,| @ readiness in respect to myself, 
4. d., 1am ready. Or it may be interpreted in this way: ‘ There 
is a readiness so far as it respects me,’ namely, to the extent of my 
ability, so far as it depends on me; meaning to intimate, that the 
actual disposal of the matter is to be wholly committed to God. 
As to τὸ σρόθυμον (an adjective of the neuter gender) being used for 
a noun, nothing is more common, than for the Greeks to employ 
adjectives in this way. 

Καὶ ὑμῖν has an emphasis in it, ὦ, 6.) even to you, at Rome, the 
metropolis of the world. In other words: ‘I shun not to preach 
the gospel any where; to the most learned and critical, as well as 
to the most unlearned and unskilled in judging” ’E», at; and so 
often times before nouns of place. 

(16) οὐ γὰρ. ... Χριστοῦ, for I am not ashamed of the gospel of 
Christ; ἃ reason or ground of his readiness to preach it, which he 
had just before asserted; and therefore it is introduced by γάρ. 
The apostle Paul gloried in the gospel; in fact, he gloried in 
nothing else. Although Christ crucified was “to the Jews a stum- 
bling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness,” he shunned not to 
preach it on this account, but was willing, even in presence of the 
learned and the sophists at Rome, to proclaim the truth as it is in 
Jesus, ὁ 

The reading τοῦ Χριστοῦ, is marked by Knapp as wanting an ade- 


Pea ee a ὑπ ὦ Oe few ΨΥ ee On ee 
᾽ 


ROMANS 1. 16, 7. 59 


quate support, and is rejected by Mill, Bengel, Koppe, Griesbach, 
and Lachmann. [ἢ respect to the sense of the passage, its insertion 
or rejection will make no important difference. If retained τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
must be construed as Genitivus objecti, ὁ. ¢., the gospel respecting 
Christ, or of which Christ is the object. 

Here ends the first or salutatory part of this epistle. The remain- 
der of verse 16 (with verses 17, 18) constitutes the leading subject 
or theme of the epistle; whicb the writer here as it were formally 
“proposes, and which he in the sequel proceeds to confirm, illustrate, 
and fortify. 


CHAP. I. 16—18. 


These four verses contain four propositions, which lie at the basis of all that may be appro- 
priately called the gospel of Christ. (1) To gospel truth is imparted a divine energy, in saving 
the souls of men. (2) Those only can be saved by it, who believe it and put their confidence in 
it. (3) The pardon of sin, or the justification which God will bestow only on sinners who believe 
in Christ, is revealed from heaven, and proposed to all men for their reception. (4) From the 
same source a revelation is made, that the unbelieving and ungodly will be the subject of divine 
indignation and punishment. The apostle does not proceed, formally and in order, to illustrate 
and establish these propositions separately and successively ; but now one part of these respec- 
tive truths, and then another, comes into view as he proceeds, and the whole is fully developed 
by him in the course of the epistle. 

Δύναμις yee... . πιστεύοντι, for wt is the power of God,- unto the 
salvation of every one who believes ; 1. ¢., it is the efficacious instru- 
ment, by which God promotes or accomplishes the salvation of all 
believers. Δύναμις ϑεοῦ means, that in and by it God exerts his power, 
that it is powerful through the energy which he imparts; and so it 
is called the power of God. ‘The γάρ serves to introduce the reason 
why the apostle is not ashamed of the gospel. It is mighty through 
God εἰς σωτηρίαν, to salvation, 7. e., to the accomplishment or attain- 
ment of salvation. Eis with the Accusative is, in a multitude of 
eases, used in the like manner.—Iavr) τῷ πιστεύοντι, Dativus com- 
modi: the gospel brings salvation to every opted) or it is the 
means of imparting it to him. 

᾿Ιουδαίῳ . .« . . Ἕλληνι, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. In 
proclaiming the gospel, the primitive preachers of it, themselves 
being Jews, were directed first to proclaim the offers of mercy 
through a Saviour to the Jews, wherever they went, and then to 
the Gentiles; which was the order usually followed, and to which 
the clause before us seems to advert. That the zgérov here merely 
relates to the order in which the gospel was proposed, and not to 


60 ROMANS I. 17. 


any substantial preference of the Jew over the Greek, the sequel 
of this epistle most abundantly shows. So Chrysostom: τάξεώς tors 
πρῶτον, 1. Cy πρῶτον relates merely to order. 

(17) Δικαιοσύνη γὰρ ϑεοῦ. Τάρ illustrantis, as lexicographers say. 
-In the preceding verse the apostle has said, that the gospel is, 
through divine power accompanying it, an efficacious instrument of 
salvation παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, to every believer. On this last expression 
an emphasis is to be laid; inasmuch as the great object of Paul, in 
the epistle before us, is to show that salvation is gratuitously be- 
stowed on the believer in Christ, but never conferred in any case 
on the ground of merit. The design of verse 17 is to suggest, that 
faith or belief is the appointed means or conditio sine qua non of 
justification, 7. ¢., of obtaining pardoning mercy from God; that the 
Old Testament Scriptures confirm this idea; and consequently, that 
salvation is granted to believers, and to them only; all which goes to 
illustrate and establish the affirmation in ver. 16. It is in this way 
that γάρ connects the fineand delicate shades of thought and processes 
of reasoning, in the Greek language; a circumstance which has, un- 
happily for the criticism of the New Testament, been quite too much 
overlooked by the great body of interpreters. 

Δικαιοσύνη Jeod is a phrase among the most important which the 
New Testament contains, and fundamental in the r ight interpretation 
of the epistle before us. To obtain a definite and precise view of 
its meaning, we must betake ourselves; in the first place, to the verb 
δικαιόω" for from the meanings which this verb conveys, come nearly 
all the shades of meaning that belong to δικαιοσύνη and δικαίωσις, 50 
often employed (especially the former) in the writings of Paul. 

The Greek sense of the verb δικαιόω differs, in one respect, from 
the corresponding Hebrew verb P78; for this (in Kal) means to be 
just, to be innocent, to be upright, and also to justify one’s self, to be 
justified, thus having the sense of either a neuter, reflexive, or pas- 
sive verb. In the active voice, δικαμόω in Greek has only an active 
sense, and it is used in pretty exact correspondence with the forms 
PA¥ and P71 (Pel and Hiphil) of the Hebrews, ὁ 6.5 it means to 
declare just, to pronounce just, to justify, i. e., to treat as Just; con- 
sequently, as intimately connected with this, to pardon, to acquit 
from accusation, to free from the consequences of sin or transgression, 
to set free from a deserved penalty. ‘This last class of meanings is 
the one in which Paul usually employs this word. As a locus classi- 
cus to vindicate this meaning, we may appeal to Rom. viii. 33, ‘Who 


Ἢ 
= 
᾿ 
; 


ROMANS I. 16. ΟἹ 


shall accuse the elect of God? It is God ὁ δικαιῶν, who acquits 
them, viz. of all accusation, or ‘ who liberates them from the penal 
consequences of transgression.’ Exactly in the same way is it said, in 
Proy. xvii. 15, ‘He who justifieth (PIS) the wicked, and he that 
condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord.’ 
So in Ex. xxiii. 7, 1 will not justify (P*YN 8%) the wicked.” In 
the same manner Is. v. 23 speaks: § IVho justify the wicked (2 “I¥9 
yen) for a reward” In these and all such cases, the meaning of 


the word justify is altogether plain, viz. it signifies to acquit, to free 


from the penal consequences of guilt, to pronounce just, 1. 6..9 to ab- 
solve from punishment, it being directly the opposite of condemning 
or subjecting to the consequences of a penalty. 

In this sense Paul very often employs the verb; e. g. Rom. v. 
1, δικοαιωθέντες, being freed from punishment, being acquitted, being 
pardoned ... . εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν Sedv. Rom. v. 9, δικαιωθέντες, 
being acquitted, pardoned . . . . σωθησόμεθα δὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς; 
which salvation is the opposite of being subjected to punishment, 
or of not being justified. In Gal. ii. 16, 17, δικαιόω is four times — 
employed in the sense of absolved, acquitted, or treated as just, i. 6.» 
freed from penalty and admitted to a state of reward. So Gal. ii. 
8,11,24.v.4. Tit. ii. 7. In Romans iv. 5, τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ 
is plainly susceptible of no other than the. above interpretation ; 
for those who are ungodly, can never be made innocent in the strict 
and literal sense of this word; they can only be treated as innocent, 
2. é. absolved from the condemnation of the law, pardoned, delivered, 
from the penalty threatened against sin. That the idea of pardon, 
or remission of the penalty threatened by the divine law, is the one 
substantially conveyed by δικωμόω and δικαιοσύνη, as generally em. 
ployed in the writings of Paul, is most evident from Romans ivy. 6, 
7; where the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputes 
δικαιοσύνη, t. 6.) Whom he reckons, counts, treats as d:ass, is thus 
described: “ Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and 
whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord im-' 
putes not sin,” ὦ. 6.) whom he does not treat or punish as a sinner, 
This passage is a fundamental explanation of the whole subject, so 
far as the present class of meanings attached to δικαμόω and δικαιοσύνη 
is concerned. 

In the same sense we have the word δικαμόω in Rom. 111. 24, 26, 
28, 38. iv. 2, et al. sepe. So Acts xiii. 38, 39. Luke xvi. 14 
Comp. Sept. in Gen. xxxviii. 26. Job xxxiii, 32. Is. xliu, 26. 


62 | ROMANS I. 17, 


The way is now open for an easy and intelligible explanation of 
the nouns, which stand intimately and etymologically connected 
with the verb dixa‘ow. These are three, viz. δικαμοσύνη, δικαίωμα, and 
δικαίωσις, all employed occasionally in the very same sense, viz. that 
of justification, i. e., acquittal, pardon, freeing from condemnation, 
accepting and treating as righteous. All three of these nouns are 
employed occasionally by the Seventy in rendering the Hebrew 
word D8); which I mention merely to show that the usus loguendi 
could employ all of them in the same sense; 6. g., δικαιοσύνη for 
bev; in Prov. xvi. 11. xvii. 23. Is. lxi. 8. Ezek. xviii. 17, 19, 
21, Seu: ; δικαίωμα for DEVI, Ex. xxi. 1, 9, 31. xxiv. 3, et seepissime; 
ἜΗΝ for ΘΕΌ, Ley. xxiv. 22. 

In like manner all three of these nouns are employed in Paul’s 
epistles: 6. g., δικαίωμα in the sense of pardon, justification, Rom. vy. 
16, where it stands as the antithesis of κατάκριμα᾽ δικαίωσις in Rom. 
iv. 25, where it plainly means justification ; and so in Romans y. 18, 
where it is the antithesis of κατάκριμα. 

But the word δικαιοσύνη is the usual one employed by Paul to 
designate gospel-justification, ὃ, e., the pardoning of sin, and accepting 
and treating as righteous. So we find this word plainly employed 
in Rom. iii. 21, 22 (comp. ver. 24), 25, 26. iv. 11, 13. v. 17, 21. ix. 
30, 31. x. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10. 2 Cor. vy. 21 (abstract for concrete). Phil, 
ii. 9. Heb. xi. 7. et alibi sepe. 

With these facts before us, we now return to our text. Λιχαιοσύνη 
Jeo seems very plainly to have the same meaning here that it has 
in Rom. ii. 21, and in the other passages just referred to in this 
epistle, viz. the justification or pardoning mercy bestowed on sinners 
who are under the curse of the divine law; or the state or condition 
of being pardoned, i. ¢., justified or treated as just. In this sense it 
is allied to, but is not altogether the same as, the Hebrew ΠΡῚΝ, 
which often means kindness, benignity, favour, deliverance from evil ; 
6. g-, Is. xlv. 8, 24. xlvi. 13. xlviii. 18. li. 6, 8. liv. 17. lvi. 1, and 
often in the Psalms. 

The reader must be careful to note, however, the simple idea of 
pardon, unattended by any thing else, 7. ¢., the mere deliverance from 
punishment is not all which is comprised in the meaning of δικαιόω 
and δικαιοσύνη. The idea is more fully expressed by accepting and 
treating as righteous. Now, when this is done by a benefactor, he 
does not stop with the simple remission of punishment, but he 
bestows happiness in the same manner as though the offender had 


ROMANS I. 17. 63 


been altogether obedient. As there are but two stations allotted for 
the human race, 7. ¢., heaven or hell; so those who are delivered from 
the latter, must be advanced to the former. 

All is now plain. Δικαιοσύνη “ϑεοῦ 185 the justification which 
God bestows, or the justification of which God is the author; or if 
any one prefers, he may call it that state of pardon and acceptance 
which is the result of mercy proffered in the gospel and dispensed 
on account of the atonement made by Christ. That Paul should 
call it δικαιοσύνη Jeod, was very natural, when he wished to distinguish 
it from that righteousness which the Jews supposed themselves to 
possess in consequence of legal obedience, and which entitled them 
(in their own view) to divine acceptance. The justification which 
God allows, or that kind of righteousness which he now admits asa 
condition of acceptance, is ἐκ πίστεως, obx ἐξ ἔργων, and therefore alto- 
gether a matter of gratuity, and not of merit or desert. This general 
view is made altogether clear, by comparing Rom. iii. 21—24; and 
indeed the whole tenor of the discussion in the epistle to the Ro- 
mans, seems imperiously to demand this sense. 

Having thus explained my own view of the meaning of δικαιοσύνη 
Jeod, which is for substance the same as that defended by Luther, 
Wolf, Heumann, Limborch, Flatt, Macknight, Usteri, Reiche, and 
many others, it may be proper, considering the importance of the sub- 


_ ject, briefly to review some of the leading opinions that have been 


advanced and defended by others. 

I. The first class are those who regard δικαιοσύνη ϑεοῦ here as de- 
signating an attribute of God; in which case ϑεοῦ is regarded not as 
Gen. auctoris, but as Gen. possessionis. 

Yet those who hold to such an opinion are by no means agreed in 
the mode of special explanation. (a) Some regard δικαμοσύνη as de- 
signating the perfect holiness and uprightness of the Saviour’s charac- 
ter, which is imputed to believers. So Chemnitz, Hoepfner, Schroe- 
der, and many others. 

But how can this δικαμοσύνη in Christ be éx πίστεως, and especially 
διὰ πίστεως Κῳστοῦϑ Phil. iii. 9. Is Christ righteous, then, by hav- 
ing faith in himself? And in what part of the Bible are we to find 
the doctrine, that his righteousness and perfect holiness is actually 
transferred or imputed to us? In such a case, our pardon would no 
more be of grace ; and our claims would no more depend on mercy, 
but on justice; a sentiment the very opposite of gospel-doctrine. Ifa 
friend gives me, who am a debtor, a sum of money sufficient to pay 


6. ROMANS I. 17. 


off my debt, my creditor is bound as much on the score of justice to 
give up my bond of payment when I deliver to him this money, as 
if it had been all earned by my own industry. It is no concern of 
his, how I obiain the money. | 

(δ) Δικαιοσύνη ϑεοῦ means God’s fidelity or veracity in the bestow- 
ment of grace according to the promisesofthe gospel. So Beza, Pis- 
eator, Turretin, Locke, Bohme, and others, 

But how can God’s fidelity or veracity, or any other of his attri- 
butes, be ἐκ πίστεως, or διὰ πίστεως, ΟΥ̓ ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει 2 

(c) God’s vindietive justice. So Origen, Theodoret, Grotius, Wet- 
stein, Marckius, Bretschn. (Lex.), Fritsche, and some others. 

But vindictive justice is manifested in the punishment of sinners, 
not in their pardon. The δικαμοσύνη here is that which pardons. 

(d) Rewarding justice, i. e., that which bestows favours on the 
virtuous. So Calov, Storr, and others. 
But how can this attribute of God be by faith, and by faith in 

Christ ? 

(e) Goodness of God. So Schoettgen, Morus, Voorst, and others. 

But here again, goodness, considered simply in the light ofa divine 
attribute, cannot be regarded as what the apostle means to desig- 
nate; for how can this be éx σήστεως ἵ 

IL. δικαιοσύνη ϑεοῦ is regarded as something which belongs to men; 
either as an attribute, quality, &c., or else as a state, condition, &e., 
of which God is the author or giver; so that ϑεοῦ is construed as Gen. 
auctoris. But here again, there is some variety of opinion; for, 

(a) Some hold that δικαιοσύνη means internal righteousness, virtue, 
or holiness such as the gospel requires. So Ammon, Schleusner, 
Tholuck, Paulus, Schultz, Winer, Wahl, Gléckler, and others. But 
some of them explain this, as meaning the way and manner of ob- 
taining this holiness. 

So far as Rom. i. 17 is concerned, this is a possible sense. But 
the phrase δικαιοσύνη is so oftenemployed by Paul to designate pardon, 
forgiveness, or at least a state of pardon or of being forgiven, that it 
cannot well be supposed it is here employed in a different sense, in 
proposing the theme which the apostle afterward discusses. 

That δικαιοσύνη Scot... . ἐκ πίστεως had a direct reference, in the 
writer’s mind, to liberation from punishment and the obtaining of 
salyation, seems to be clear from the quotation which he immediately 
makes from the Old Testament, in order to sanction the sentiment 
which he had uttered, viz. δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως Choeras, he who is just, ὃ, e., 


ROMANS I. 17. G35 


he who is accepted or regarded as δίκαιος, shall obtain life by faith, 
i. é. shall be happy by faith (not by merit). Such then is the δι- 
καιοσύνη Θεοῦ. It bestows unmerited favour on perishing sinners; not 
on him who has fulfilled the law, (for who has done this?) but on 
him who believes on Jesus; comp. Romans iv. 3—5. 

Such a δικαιοσύνη, which is from God, or is of divine appointment, 
is revealed in or by the gospel, ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκωλύπτεται" for αὐτῷ refers 
to τὸ εὐαγγέλιον in ver. 16. The apostle does not mean to say, that 
nothing respecting such a faith was before revealed; for he appeals 
Gamedintely to the Old Test.-Scriptures, in order to confirm the 
sentiment which he had just uttered. But the gospel, in the first 
place, makes such a revelation one of its most prominent features ; 
and therefore, secondly, justification by faith is revealed in it more 
fully and explicitly than it ever had been before. In the like way, 
life and immortality are said to be brought to light by the gospel, 
2 Tim. i. 10. 

Ἔχ“ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, a controverted, and (by reason of its connec- 
tion) very difficult phrase. The main question is, whether ἐκ πίστεως 
is to be joined with δικαιοσύνη, or whether it belongs in sense to εἰς 
πίστιν, 80 that ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν Would make a kind of climactic ex- 
pression, which would be equivalent to the following phrase, viz., 
‘from a lower to a higher degree of faith.’ In this latter way Theo- 
phylact understood it; for he says, οὐ γὰρ ἀρκεῖ τὸ πρώτως πιστεῦσαι, 
QAN ἐχ τῆς εἰσαγωγικῆς πίστεως δεῖ ἡμᾶς ἀναβαΐνειν εἰς τὴν τελειότεραν πίστιν" 
i. 6.) ‘our first belief is not sufficient, but we must ascend from our 
inceptive faith to a more perfect degree of it. So Clemens Alex. 
(Strom. V. 1): Κοινὴ πίστις καθάπερ ϑεμέλιος, καθὼς ὁ Κύριος λέγει, ἡ πίστις 
σου σέσωκέ σε, ἱ. 6.7 ‘a common faith is as it were a foundation, as 
Christ said: Thy faith hath saved thee. He then goes on to say, 
that ‘a τελεία πίστις is one which can remove mountains; on which 
account the apostles themselves made this request : Lord, we be- 


4 lieve, help thou our unbelief!’ 


Tholuck approves of this exegesis; and it is substantially the 
same as that which has been defended by Melancthon, Beza, Calov, 
Le Clerc, and many others. But three difficulties seem to lie in the 
way of admitting it; the first, that it does not appear at all to answer 


the exigency of the passage; the second, that the usus loguendi of 


Paul’s epistles is against it; the third, that the context is evidently 
repugnant to it. 


(a) The exigency of the passage. The exegesis in question would 
E 


66 ROMANS I. 17. 


make Paul’s main thesis to be this: ‘The justification which God 
bestows, (or, according to Tholuck, the fulfilling of the law which he 
requires,) is revealed in the gospel, from a lower degree of faith to 
a higher,’ ὁ. 6.) (as 1 suppose is meant,) it is so revealed, as that men 
are required to advance from a lower degree of faith to a higher one. 
But this would indeed be a most singular mode of expressing such 
asentiment; one of the last which the usual method of thought and 
expression can well be supposed to devise. One might expect, if this 
idea is intended to be contained in the passage, that the writer would 
have said: δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύστεται ἵνα προβαίνωμεν (OY 
προβῶμεν) ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν or at least that some mode of expression 
like this would have been employed. But if the sense be not, 
that justification is so revealed by the gospel as that men are 
required to advance from a lower to a higher degree of faith, then, 
after all, ἐκ πίστεως must be joined in effect with δικαιοσύνη, and we 
must say, ‘ The justification which is ἐκ σήστεως εἰς πίστιν, is revealed, 
_ &e. But to sucha junction Tholuck objects, on account of the 
separation of ἐκ σίστεως from δικαιοσύνη. A word on this point, in 
the sequel. 

I have said that this sentiment does not fit the exigency of the 
passage; and my reason for saying this is, that it represents the 
apostle, not as proposing the grand theme of gratuitous justification 
(which is evidently the main subject of his epistle), but as proposing 
the climactic nature of the faith connected with justification, as his 
great topic. Howcan this well be imagined by a considerate reader 
of his epistle? 

(ὁ) It is against the usus loquendi of homogeneous passages ; 6. 6.» 
Rom. ill. 22, δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως (altogether of the same tenor 
as δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ... ἐκ πίστεως IN OUT verse); Rom. iii. 30, ὃς δικαιώσει 
; . ἐκ πίστεως, καὶ. . .. διὰ πίστεως" Rom. iv. 11, σφραγῖδα τῆς 
δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως" Rom. iv. 13, διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως" Rom. v. 1, 
δικαιωθέντες ἐκ πίστεως" Rom. ix. 30, τὰ ἔθνη. . .. κατέλαβε. . . δικαιοσύνην 
τὴν ἐκ σίστεως" Rom. ix. 32, ὅτι οὐκ [Ισραὴλ ἦν διώκων δικαιοσύνην] ἐκ πίστεως" 
Rom. x. 6, ἡ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη" and so in the other epistles of Paul, 
6. Joy Gal. it, 16, [δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος] διὰ πίστεως" Gal. iii. 8, éx πίστεως 
δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔδνη ὁ Θεός" Gal. iii. 11, ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται (a quotation); 
Gal. iii, 24, ἵνα ἐκ πίστεως δικαιωθῶμεν' Gal. ν. 5, ἐκ πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιο- 
σύνης ἀπεχδεχόμεϑα" Phil. iii. 9, δικαιοσύνην. . .. τὴν διὰ πίστεως" Heb. | 
Xl. 7, τῆς κατὰ πίστιν δικαιοσύνης" et alibi sepe. These are enough to 
show what Paul (had almost said every where, and always) presents — 


Ἐν τε κι Re ee ΝΣ 


Ν 


ROMANS I. 17. 67 


to our view, in respect to the subject of justification. Can there be 
any good reason to apprehend, that in proposing the theme of his 
whole epistle, he should not propose the same justification by faith of 
which he afterwards so amply treats? 

‘ But,’ it is replied, ‘how could Paul separate ἐκ πίστεως so far from 
δικαιοσύνη, if he means that the former should qualify the latter?’ I 
answer, it was because δικαιοσύνη, as here employed, has already a 
noun in the Genitive (Θεοῦ) connected with it. The writer could 
not say ἡ &% πίστεως δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ (which would, I believe, be without 
a parallel); nor was it apposite to say, δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ ἐκ πίστεως, because 
the writer was hastening to say, that God’s appointed method of 
justification was revealed in the gospel. When this idea, which was 
uppermost in his mind (because he had just said that he was not 
ashamed of the gospel), was fully announced, the writer proceeds 
immediately to specify more particularly the δικαιοσύνη in question. 
Itis ἃ δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πίστεως" in accordance with which he has, in almost 
numberless examples, elsewhere made declarations. 

The easiest and most direct solution is, to suppose d:xasoobvn to be 
repeated here before ἐκ πίστεως. The sentence would then run thus: 
Δικαμοσύνη γὰρ Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται [δικαμοσύνη] ἐκ πίστεως κ. τ. λι; ΟΥ̓ 
γενομένη may be supplied by the mind, before ἐκ σίστεως. In this way, 
ἐκ πίστεως 18 epexegetical merely of what precedes. ‘The idea con- 
veyed by δικαιοσύνη is resumed by the mind, and it is made still more 
definite by this adjunct. 

(ὁ) That this is the real sentiment and design of the apostle, seems 
quite clear from the context, 7. 6.5 from the quotation which he forth- 
with makes in order to confirm what he had said, viz. ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ 
πίστεως ζήσεται. Does not δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως clearly and unavoidably 
correspond with the δικαιοσύνη... . ἐκ πίστεως which immediately 
precedes? 

I merely add, that Flatt, Bengel, Hammond, and others, interpret 
the passage in he same way as I fat done. The more I study the 
passage, the more difficulty I feel in construing it as meaning reveal- 
ed from faith to faith. What can be the meaning of revealed FROM 
faith? And if ἐκ πίστεως does not qualify ἀποκαλύπτεται, then it must 
qualify δικαιοσύνη" in which case the meaning that I have given seeins 
nearly certain. And so Reiche construes ἐκ πίστεως, connecting it 
with δικαιοσύνη, and supposing γενομένη to be implied before it, which 
is admissible. 

In respect to the thing itself, viz. justification by faith, faith desig- 


68 : ROMANS I. 17. 


nates the modus in quo, or the means by which ; not the causa cau- 
8ans seu efficiens, i. e., not either the meritorious.or efficient cause or 
ground of forgiveness. Every where the apostle represents Christ as 
this cause. But faith (so to speak) is a conditio sine qua non; it is 
a taking hold of the blessings proffered by the gospel, although it is 
by no means the cause or ground of their being offered. If the read- 
ers of this epistle will keep in mind these simple and obvious truths, 
it will save them much perplexity. Justification by faith, is an ex- 
pression designed to point out gratuitous justification (Rom. iv. 16), 
in distinction from that which is by merit, 7. ¢., by deeds of law, or 
entire obedience to the precepts of the law. The word faith, as used 
in this phrase, is designed to show, that the justification which we 
are now considering can be conferred only on believers, and that it 
is to be distinguished from δικαιοσύνη ἐξ ἔργων, i. e., meritorious justifi- 
cation. It is not designed to show that faith is, in any sense, the 
meritorious or procuring cause or ground of justification. 

Eis πίστιν, in order to be believed, for belief. Such a use of the 
Acc. with εἰς is exceedingly frequent in Paul’s epistles. It is equi- 
valent to the Infinitive mood with the article before it ; 6. g., in ver. 5. 
above, εἰς ὑπακοὴν == εἰς τὸ ὑπακουθῆναι" SO In Ver. 10, εἰς σωτηρίαν == εἷς τὸ 
σωθῆναι, et sic al, sepe. The reason why the apostle adds εἰς πίστιν 
seems to be, because he had said εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ σπιστεύοντι. In ac- 
cordance with this he here says, that gratuitous justification (δικαιο- 
σύνη ἐκ πίστεως) is revealed, so that all, both Jews and Greeks (Iovdaiw 
τεπρῶτον xa)” EAAqu) may believe and be saved ; i. 6.5. they can be saved 
through belief, and in this way only. Or we may construe εἰς πίστιν as 
Reiche does, viz. δικαιοσύνη is revealed to belief, ἴ. e., to believers ; 
comp. iii. 21. 

If ix πίστεως is to be attached to ἀποκαλύστεται, | should think the 
sentiment must be, that ‘the gospel is revealed by means of faith, 7. e., 
by means of those who have faith in Christ, and in order to promote 
faith; thus making a kind of paronomasia, to which the writings of 
Paul are by no means a stranger. But I cannot apprehend this to 
be the true sentiment. 

It should be remarked here, how faith is represented as the neces- 
sary condition of δικατοσύνη Θεοῦ, and also that this is revealed to those 
who have faith, or at least for the sake of promoting faith. Thus 
the gospel scheme seems to begin and end (as it were) with faith 
‘He that believeth shall be saved.’ 

Καῤὼς γέγραπται, in accordance with what is written, agreeably to 


ROMANS I. 17. OY 


what is written, viz. in the Scriptures. The Talmudists very often 
appeal to the Scriptures in the like way, by the formulas 12°72'N55, 
as it is written; 2027304390 according to that which is written ; 
or PORT WNT WD), as the Scripture says. It is not necessary to 
suppose, in all cases of this nature, that the writer who makes such 
an appeal, regards the passage which he quotes as specific prediction. 
Plainly this is not always the case with the writers of the New Tes- 
tament; as nearly all commentators now concede. Compare, for ex- 
ample, Acts xxvili. 25, seq. Rom. vill. 36, ix. 33, x. 5. xi. 26, xiv. 11, 
&e. Such being the case, it is not necessary that we should HN: 
pret the passage alah follows (Hab. ii. 4.), as having been originally 
designed to describe gospel justification by faith ; for plate the con- 
nection in which it stands does not admit of this specific meaning, 
But it then involves the same principle as that for which the apostle is 
contending, viz., that ‘the means of safety is confidence or trust in the 
divine declarations.’ The prophet Habakkuk sees, in prophetic vision, 
“troublous times” coming upon Judea; andhe exclaims, 7) INN 
PTS, ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, the pious man shall be an by his con- 
fidence or faith, viz.,in God. It was not, then, by relying on his 
own merit or desert that safety could be had; it was to be obtained 
only in the way of believing and trusting the divine declarations. 
Now the very same principle of action was concerned in so doing at 
that time, which is concerned with the faith and salvation of the 
gospel. Of course the apostle might appeal to this declaration of 
Habakkuk, as serving to confirm the principle for which he con- 
_ tended. 
_ Dr. Knapp and many others join ἐκ σήστεως with δίκαιος, and then 
translate the passage thus: The just by faith shall live; 1. 6.» 
_he who possesses faith shall be happy. The sentiment is true; but 
it does not comport, I apprehend, with the design of Habakkuk, who 
- tnust have written "78.2 if he intended this, and not (as he has 
᾿ς done) {npNA, 
me If it be viewed as a simple illustration of a general principle, all 
_ difficulty about the quotation vanishes. As the Israelite, in the time 
4 of Habakkuk, was to be saved from evil by means of faith, so Jews 
_ and Gentiles are now to be saved by means of faith. What real 
difficulty can there be in such a comparison as this? 
To the whole I subjoin the brief comment which J. A. Turretin 
has so strikingly given, in his Prelectiones on the epistle to the Ro- 


τ ROMANS I. 18. 


mans: “ Apostolus noster, ubi agit de justificatione et salute homi_ 
num, sepe vocat justitiam Dei eam justificationis rationem quam 
Deus hominibus commo strat, et cujus ope eos ad salutem ducit.” 
Again: “Justitia Dei... . est ipsamet hominis justificatio, seu 
modus quo potest justus haberi apud Deum, et salutis particeps fieri;” 
a definition of which one may almost say: Omane tulit punectum. 

Turretin has, indeed, construed ἐκ σίστεως εἰς πίστιν nearly as Tho- 
luck has done. But the usus loguendi of Paul in such constructions 
is decidedly against him: ὁ. g., Rom. vi. 19, ‘ Since ye have yielded 
your members as servants of impurity, καὶ τῇ ἀνομίᾳ εἰς ἀνομίαν, and to 
iniquity for the commission of wickedness, so should ye yield your 
members as servants τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ εἰς ἁγιασμὸν unto righteousness, in 
order that ye may practise holiness; 2 Cor. ii. 16, ‘[The gospel is] 
to some ὀσμὴ Savdrov εἰς Javérov, and to others, ὀσμὴ ζωῆς εἰς ζωὴν, a 
savour of death to the causing of death, and a savour of life to the — 
causing of life.” In these and all such eases, the Accusative with εἰς 
before it, denotes the end, or object, to which the thing that had just 
been named tends. So must it be, then, in the text; the [δικαιοσύνη] 
ἐκ πίστεως is revealed or declared to the world εἰς zion, t. 6.) in order 
that it may be received or believed. | 

(18) ᾿Αποκαλύπτεται γὰρ... . ἀνθρώπων, for the wrath of God from 
heaven, is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. As 
to the γάρ with which this verse is introduced, I am now persuaded 
that it refers to an implied thought in the mind of the writer, which 
intervened between verses 17 and 18, viz. ὁ This δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ is now © 
the only δικαιοσύνη possible for men. That this is so, the sequel 
shows; which is designed to prove that all men are in a state of sin 
and condemnation, and can be saved only by gratuitous pardon. To 
the same purpose is Reiche’s remark on γάρ as here employed. See 
Bretsch. Lex. on γάρ, where this principle is illustrated copiously. 

᾿Οργὴ Θεοῦ, literally, the wrath of God, divine indignation, or (to 
use a softer phraseology) God’s displeasure. That the phrase is an- 
thropopathic (7. e., is used ἀνθροποπάθως), will be doubted by no one 
who has just views of the divine Being. It is impossible to unite 
with the idea of complete perfection, the idea of anger in the sense 
in which we usually cherish that passion; for with us it is a source 
of misery as well as sin. To neither of these effects of anger can we 
properly suppose the divine Being to be exposed. His anger, then, 
can only be that feeling or affection in him, which moves him to 
look on sin with disapprobation, and to punish it when connected 


eS ee ae 


mbar 


“να Ce EASE SE REO” τοι 


4Δὰ ee 
a! deatsin 
~~ ba 


ROMANS 1. 18. 71 


with impenitence. We must not, even in imagination, connect this 
in the remotest manner with revenge ; which is only and always a 
malignant passion. But vengeance, even among men, is seldom 
sought for against those whom we know to be perfectly impotent, in 
respect to thwarting any of our designs and purposes. Now 88 all 
men, and all creation, can never endanger any one interest (if ] may 
so speak) of the divine Being, or defeat a single purpose; so we can- 
not even imagine a motive for revenge, on ordinary grounds. Still 
less can we suppose the case to be of this nature, when we reflect that 
God is infinite in wisdom, power, and goodness. - This constrains us 
to understand such phrases as ὀργὴ Θεοῦ, x. τ. A. as anthropopathic, 1. 6.» 
as speaking of God after the manner of men. It would be quite as 
well (nay, much better) to say, that when the Bible attributes 
hands, eyes, arms, &¢c., to God, the words which it employs should 
be literally understood, as to say, that when it attributes anger and 
vengeance to him, it is to be literally understood. Ifwe so construe 
the Scriptures, we represent God as a malignant being, and class him 
among the demons; whereas by attributing to him hands, eyes, &c., 
we only commit the sin of anthropomorphism. 

The lexicons make ὀργὴ to signify punishment. By way of conse- 
quence, indeed, punishment is implied. But ὀργὴ Θεοῦ is a more fear- 
ful phrase, understood in the sense of divine displeasure or indigna- 
tion, and more pregnant with awful meaning 180 rendered, than it is 
if we give to it simply the sense of χόλασις, as so many critics and 
lexicographers have doze. 

“Ag οὐρανοῦ, another locus vexatus. Is it to be joined with Θεοῦ ; or 
should we refer back to ἀποκαλύπτεται, and construe it as implying the 
method in which the divine displeasure is made known? The latter 
way is the one which almost all commentators have chosen, although 
there is almost an endless diversity among them as to the meaning of 
ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ. EK. g. (1) The heavens declare the glory of God, and so 
point men naturally to his worship, and by consequence warn them 
to forsake sin. (2) Storm, tempest, hail, thunder, lightning, &c., 
Jrom heaven, declare the wrath of God against sin. (3) Christ will 
be revealed from heaven, at the last judgment, to punish sin; so 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Limborch, &c. (4) Judg- 
ments which come from God, who is in heaven, testify against sin; 
so Origen, Cyril, Beza, Calvin, Bengel, &c. (5) In consequence of an 
appointment of heaven, the divine displeasure against sin is testified 
by conscience in every breast. (6) The displeasure of God against 


2 ROMANS I, 18, 


sin is revealed, through divine si id cng or by the arrangement 
of the supreme Being. 

This last interpretation I think to be nearly right. But the usus 
loquendi (which seems unaccountably to have been overlooked here) 
enables us to be more explicit. In Heb. xii. 25, the apostle says: 
“Tf they escaped not who rejected τὸν ἐπὶ γῆς .... χρηματίζοντα, 
him who on earth [at Mount Sinai] warned them, much more shall 
we not escape, if we reject τὸν ἀπ᾽ οὐρανῶν [χρηματίζοντα ] him [who 
warneth us] from heaven ;’ comp. Mark i. 11, where a voice ἐχ τῶν 
οὐρανῶν Says: “This is my beloved Son,” &c. Now ifsuch phraseo- 
logy be compared with Matt. v. 45, τοῦ πατρός ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς" vi. 1, 
πατρὶ .᾿. « « ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς" vi. 9, πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, et al. seepe, 
it would seem sufficiently plain, that God coming from heaven where 
he dwells, or God belonging to heaven, is intended to be designated 
by the phrase Θεοῦ ἀπ᾽ oigavt. SoReiche. That ἀπό, in a multitude 
of cases, is put before a noun of place, in order to designate that one 
belongs to it, scarcely needs to be suggested; 6. g., Matt. ii. ἧς iv. 
25. 2 Thess. i. 7. John 1. 45. xxviii. 21, et al. sepe. The senti- 
ment I take to be this: ‘The God of fetuses or the God who 
dwells in heaven, 7. ¢., God supreme, omnipotent, has revealed his 
displeasure against sin ;’ and, therefore, escape from punishment can 
be only by the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ. 

How the revelation of God’s displeasure is made, is disclosed by 
the sequel. To the heathen it is made by God’s works and their 
own consciences, Rom. i. 20, 32. ii. 14, 15. 

᾿Ασέβειαν, impiety towards God (from « privative and σέβομαι to 
worship) ; ἀδικίαν, injustice, unrighteousness, toward men. 

Τῶν τὴν. .. κατεχόντων, who keep back or hinder the truth by ἐγιῖ-- 
quity. So the verb χατέχω most naturally means; comp. Luke iy. 
42, Philem. ver. 13. 2 Thess. ii. 6,7. It also means to hold firmly, 
to grasp hold of, to take possession of and retain, &c., as may be seen 
in the lexicons; but these meanings do not fit well here. Theophy- 
lact explains κατεχόντων by καλύπτειν, σκοτίζειν. The meaning seems to 
be: ‘Who hinder the progress or obstruct the power of truth, in 
themselves or others.’ 

But of what truth? ᾿Αλήθεια cannot here mean the gospel ; be- 
cause the writer goes on immediately to say, that the light of nature 
sufficed to teach the heathen better, than to restrain the ἀλήθεια in 
question. ᾿Αλήθεια is here, then, that truth which the light of nature 
taught respecting the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator 


ἊΨ  — ar 


᾿ 
. 
4 


ROMANS I. 19. 73 


When the apostle says in ver. 18, réiv-rqv ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων, 
in his own mind he singles out of the ἀνθρώπων (all men) whom he 
has just mentioned, the heathen or Gentiles, whose vicious state he 
unmediately proceeds to declare. This isthe theme for the remain- 
der of the first chapter. 

Ἔν ἀδικίῳᾳ may mean by iniquity, ἐν standing before the means or 
enstrumment, as usual; or else it is used adverbially = ἀδίκως" Reiche 
prefers the latter sense; which is agreeable to idiom. ΤῸ fill out ver. 
18 completely, the reader must. supply, ἢ in his own mind, Saad πᾶσαν 
ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν] σῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν Nes, €e. Pos 


CHAP. IL 19—82. 


Tue apostle, having intended in his own mind to designate the heathen or Gentiles, by 
mentioning those ‘who hinder the truth through unrighteousness,’ now proceeds to illustrate 
and confirm his charge against them. God, says he, has disclosed in the works of creation his 
eternal power and Godhead; and this so clearly, that they are without excuse for failing to 
recognize it, verses 19, 20. And since they might have known him, but were ungrateful, and 
refused to glorify him, and darkened their minds by vain and foolish disputations; since they 
represented the eternal God to be like mortal man, and even like the brutes which perish; 
God gave those up to their own base and degrading lusts, who thus rendered tothe creature 
the honour that was due to the Creator, verses 21—25. Yea, he gave them up to the vile and 
unnatural passions which they cherished, verses 29, 30; and these they not only commit 
themselves, although they know them to be worthy of death, ὁ. e., of condemnation on the part 
of the Divine lawgiver, but by their approbation they encourage others to commit the like 
offences. 

Such being the state of facts in regard to the heathen world, it follows of course that they 
justly lie under the condemning sentence of the divine law. It is not the object of the apostle 
to prove that every individual heathen is guilty of each and all the sins which he enumerates; 
much less does he intend even to intimate that there are not other sins, besides those which he 
enumerates, of which the Gentiles are guilty. It is quite plain, that those which he does 
mention, are to be regarded merely in the light of a specinex.. Nor will the charges which he 
here makes, prove that every individual of the Gentile world was, at the moment when he 
was writing, guilty of all the things preferred against the heathen. If we suppose that there 
might then have been some virtuous heathen, (a supposition apparently favoured by Rom. ii. 
14), such persons must have abstained from the habitual practices of the vices named, and 
from others like them. But it suffices for the apostle’s purpose, to show that they once had 
been guilty of them; which of course was to show their absolute need of salvation by a Re- 
deemer, #. eh 2 of gratuitous ἘΜῸΝ procured through him. xen case may. he, the same here, as 
the Jews. Certainly this was ‘aot Yedigudd to prove that there then existed no pious eae 
who were not liable to such charge in its full extent, at the moment when the apostle was 
writing. Nay, it was of course true to some extent, even of the pious, at the time when Paul 


was writing, that they daily committed sin in some form or other; aud the same was true of 
~ 


14 ROMANS I. 19, 


pious Gentiles, if indeed there were any such. All men, then, were guilty before God, al- 
though all men might not practise the particular vices which the apostle named, when he was 
writing. It matters not for his purpose to prove this. All who could sin, had sinned, and 
did then sin, in some way or other ; all this is now, and always has been true. Of course, all 
have fallen under the condemnation of the divine law, and salvation by the grace proffered in 
the gospel, is the only salvation which is possible for them. 

The question when men begin to sin, it is not the object of the apostle here to discuss. Nor 
is it even the degree of their depravity, which is his main design to illustrate and prove. The 
universality of it is the main point; and it is all which is essential to his argument. To this 
universality Paul admits of no exception; but then we are of course to understand this, of those 
who are capable of sinning. Itis thus that we interpret in other cases. For example, when 
it is said: “ He that believeth not, shall be damned,” we interpret this of those who are ca- 
pable of believing, and do not extend it beyond them. Withthe question, when individuals 
are capable of believing or of sinning, I repeat it, Paul does not here concern himself. WNei- 
ther mere infancy, nor entire idiocy, is the object of his present consideration. He is plainly 
speaking of such, and only of such, as are capable of sinning; and these, one and all, he avers 
to be sinners, in a greater or less degree. Such being the fact, it follows, that as- “ the soul 
which sinneth must die,” so, ifthere be any reprieve from this sentence, it must be obtained 
only by pardoning mercy through a Redeemer. 

I add merely, that the clause τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικέᾳ κατεχόντων, properly belongs to that di- 
vision of the discourse which we are now toexamine; but the connection of it with the gene- 
ral proposition in the preceding part of ver. 18, is made so intimate by the present grammati- 
cal structure, that I deemed it best not to disjoin them in the commentary. 


(19) But how is it to be made out, that the heathen keep back the 
truth respecting the only living and true God, by their unrighteous- 
ness? I answer, by showing that to all men is made, in the works 
of nature, a revelation so plain of the eternal power and Godhead of 
Jehovah, that nothing but a wilful and sinful perversion of the light 
which they enjoy, can lead them to deny this great truth. So the 
apostle: Asdr:.... αὐτοῖς, because that which might be known con- 
cerning God was manifest to them. Aditi = διὰ τοῦτο ὅτι and equiva- 
lent in logical force here to γάρ, stands before a clause which assigns 
a reason why the apostle asserts that the heathen hinder the truth by 
iniquity. The amount of the proof which follows is, (1) That the 
truth was knowable. (2) That nothing but base and evil passions 
keep men from acknowledging and obeying it. 

Τὸ γνω:τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, literally the knowledge of God, or that concern- 
ing God which is knowable or known. ‘That the neuter adjective is 
used for a noun, is in accordance with a well-known and common 
Greek idiom. The meaning that which is knowable, seems on the 
whole to be best; and that τὸ γνωστόν may be thus rendered we can 
have no doubt, when we compare τὸ νοητόν intelligible, τὸ αἰσθητόν quod 
perceptum sit, τὸ ἀόρατον quod non visum sit, i. 6.7 invisible, &c. Ernesti 
denies that γνωστόν can be rendered, that which is to be known, or that 


ROMANS I. 19. 7d 


which is knowable, (N. Theol. Biblioth. X. 630); and this has been 
greatly contested among critics. Buttmann (Gram. § 92. Anm. 3, 
comp. my N. Test. Gramm. § 82, Note 1.) seems to have decided this 
point, however, beyond any reasonable doubt. He says, indeed, that 
verbals in -ré frequently correspond to the Latin participles in -tus ; 
SO πλεχτός stricken, στρεπτός perverted, “ποιητός made, factus, &e. But 
“more commonly,” he adds, “they have the sense of possibility, like 
the Latin adjectives in -dlis, or the German ones in-bar; as orgerrés 
versatilis, ὁρωτός vistbilis, ἀκοῦστός audibilis.” This appears more 
fully when ἐστί is jomed with these adjectives or verbals; 6. 6.) βιωτόν 
ἐστι, one can live, (quasi ‘it is live-able’); τοῖς οὐκ ἐξιτόν ἐστι, they can- 
not go out, (quasi ‘to them it is not go-able’). It is strange, indeed, 
that this should so long and so often have been called in question ; 
especially as Plato frequently uses the very word under examination, 
in connection with δοξαστόν, 6. 6.5 τὸ γνωστὸν καὶ τὸ δοξαστόν, that which is 
knowable and that which is supposable, de Repub. Lib. v. | 
Tov Θεοῦ concerning God, Sot being Genitivus oljecti, as gramma- 
rians say. For an extended statement of the latitude of the Geni- 
tive, in regard to the many various relations which it expresses, see 
N. Test. Gramm. ὃ 99. Examples in point are Matt. xiii. 18, raga. 
βολὴ τοῦ σπείροντος, the parable CONCERNING the sower; 1 Cor. i. 18, 
ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ, the declaration CONCERNING the cross. So λόγος 
τινός ἃ; report CONCERNING any one, Xen. Cyrop. vi. 3. 10. viii. 5. 28. 
Comp. Luke vi. 12. Rom. xiii. 3. John xvii. 2. Heb. ix. 8, et alibi. 

"Ey αὐτοῖς may be construed among them. So ἐν often means; 6. g., 
Matt. ii. 6, ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν, among the leaders; Luke 1. 1, ἐν ἧμιν, among 
us; Rom. i. 6, ἐν οἷς among whom; Rom. xi. 17. 1 Cor. ii. 18, &e. 
The sense would then be: ‘ What may be known [by the light of 
nature | concerning God, was manifest among them,’ 7. ¢., in the midst 
of them, or before their eyes. The more probable sense, however, 
seems to be in them, i. e., in their minds or consciences; comp. Rom. 
i. 15. Acts xiii. 15. Some prefer to render ἐν αὐτοῖς as they would 
the simple Dative αὐτοῖς, viz., to them, and appeal to such examples as 
1 Cor. xiv. 11. Matt. xvii. 22. Luke xxiii. 31. xii. 8, and even to 
“Acts iv. 12. 1 Cor. 11. 6. 2 Cor. iv. 8. But the preceding method 
of construction is plainly the more certain and simple one. Tho- 
luck and Reiche accordingly prefer to render ἐν αὑτοῖς in them; and 
they interpret it as referring to their moral sense, by which they may 
come to discern and judge of the evidences of divine power and God- 
head. ‘That é before the Dative, can never be properly considered 


76 | ROMANS I. 20. 


the same thing asthe simple Dative, seems to be conclusively shown 
by Winer, N. Test. Gramm. p. 177, ed. 3. 

The γάρ in ὁ Θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσε is γάρ confirmantis. 

(20) Τὰ γὰρ... . καὶ ϑειότης may be regarded as ἃ parenthetic ex- 
planation. The γάρ here is also γάρ confirmantis vel illustrantis, and 
has special relation to the clause or declaration immediately preceding, 
ὦ. é., it stands before an assertion designed to illustrate and confirm 
the preceding declaration. 

Τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτου, for the invisible things of him, i. e., of God. 
’ Adgura, means the attributes or qualities.of the divine Being; which 
are ἀόρατα, because they are not objects of physical notice, 7. ¢., are 
not disclosed to any of our corporeal senses. Of course the expres- 
sion refers to the attributes belonging to God considered as a spirit; 
1 Tim. i. 17. | 

᾿Απὸ κτίσεως κόσμου, since the creation of the world, or since the world 
was created. That ἀπό may be rendered since, scarcely needs proof; 
6. Ju ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης, &c.; see Lex. 
in verbum. With equal propriety, so far as the wsus loguendi merely 
is concerned, might it be rendered by, by means of, a sense which 
ἀπό very frequently has. But the reason why it should not be ren- 
dered in this latter way, is that σοιήμασι designates the means by 
which. By Tah ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ. . . . καθορᾶται, the writer means to say, 
that ever since the world was created, the evidences of eternal power 
and Godhead have been visible to the mind; which, indeed, must 
be as true as that they are now visible. 

Τοῖς ποιήμασι, by things which are made, i. e., by the natural creation. 
Ποωήμασι, might be rendered by his operations, inasmuch as nouns 
ending in the neuter -μα not frequently in the Hebrew-Greek have 
the same meaning as those which end in -ots; 6. 9., δικαίωμα, δικαίωσις, 
justification. If it were thus rendered, the sense would be, that the 
operations of God in the world of nature continually bear testimony 
respecting him. This is not only true, but a truth scarcely less 
striking, as it now appears to us through the medium of astronomy, 
uatural philosophy, and physiology, than that which is developed by 
creative power. Nevertheless, as the discoveries of modern science 
were unknown to the heathen, so it seems most congruous here to 
explain σποιήμασι by things made, the natural creation, which the 
heathen, in common with all others, were continually reminded of 
by their external senses. ἴ 

The due result of serious notice is, that rd ἀόρατα τοῦ Θεοῦ may be 


5 ὦ ΕἸ εξὶ ee, 


ROMANS L 20. 77 


νοούμενα, apprehended by the mind, understood. Νοούμενα καθορᾶται 
means, are distinctly seen, are intelligibly perceived, 1.e., they are so, 
or may be so, by the aid of the things which have been made. In 
other words: God’s invisible attributes, at least some of them, are 
made as it were visible, 7. ¢., are made the object of clear and distinct 
apprehension, by reason of the natural creation. So the Psalmist : 
“The heavens declare the glory of God; the, firmament showeth 
forth the work of his hands. Day unto day uttereth speech, night 


“unto night showeth knowledge,” Ps. xix. 1, 2. 


But what are the attributes of God which are thus plainly discern- 
ible by his works? ‘The answer is, ἡ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ ϑειότης, 
both or even his eternal power and Godhead. This clause is epexe- 
getical of τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ. Δύναμις must here have special reference 
to the creative power of God; and this seems to be called ἀΐδιος, be- 
cause it must have been possessed antecedently to the creation 
of the world, or before time began. Still, although δημμουργίω (cre- 
ative power), as Theodoret says, is here specially meant, I appre- 
hend that the sense of δύναμις is not restricted to this. He who 
had power to create, must of course be supposed to have power to 
wield and govern. 

Θειότης is distinguished by Tholuck and others, from Θεύτης" for 
they represent the latter as signifying the Divinity or the Divine na- 
ture, while the former is represented as meaning the complewity of 
the divine attributes, the sum or substance of divine qualities. I can- 
not find any good ground, however, for such a distinction. Θεότης is 
the abstract derived from 3<é5° and from this latter word is formed 
the concrete or adjective derivate Seis, divine. Td Seu of course 
means divinity; and from this comes another regular abstract noun 
Seérns, with the same signification. So Passow: ϑεότης, Gétilichkett, 
gottliche Natur, i. e., divinity, divine nature. He then adds: “ In 
particular, divine greatness, power, excellence, eminence,” &c.; 1, 6.» 
Sesérng designates the divinity with special reference to these quali- 
ties—-the identical manner in which the word is employed in our 
text. The same lexicographer defines ϑεότης the Godhead, the divine 
Being, divine excellence. In the same sense, viz., that of Godhead, 
Divinity, is τὸ θεῶν plainly used in Acts xvii. 29. So ϑειότης Wisd. 
xviii. 9. So Clemens Alex. (Strom. V. 10), τὸ μὴ φθείρεσθαι, ϑειότητος 
μετέχειν ἐστί, not to perish, is to be a partaker of Godhead or 
Dwinity. 

If ϑειότης be interpreted here as a word designating “ the sum of all 


78 ROMANS I. 21. 


the divine attributes,” we must regard natural theology as equally 
extensive with that which is revealed, so far as the great doctrines 
respecting the Godhead are concerned. Did the apostle mean to as- 
sert this? [trustnot. I must understand ϑειότης, then, as designat- 
ing Divinity, divine nature, divine excellence or supremacy, 1. é., such 
a station, and condition, and nature as make the Being who holds 
and possesses them to be truly divine, or God. ternal power and 
supremacy or exaltation appear, then, to be those qualities or attri- 
butes of the divine Being, which the works of creation are said by 
the apostle to disclose. And when examined by the eye of philoso- 
phy and reason, the evidence appears to be of the very same nature 
which he has here designed. At all events, the heathen never have 
made out any very definite and explicit views of God as holy and 
hating sin; not to speak of other attributes, of which they had quite 
imperfect and unsatisfactory views. 

On this deeply interesting subject, viz., the disclosures of the na- 
tural world in respect to the Creator, Aristotle has said an exceed- 
ingly striking thing (De Mundo, c. 6), πάσῃ ϑνητῇ φύσει γενόμενος, 
ἀθεώρητος, ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων ϑεωρεῖται 6 Θεός, God, who is invisible to 
every mortal being, is seen by his works. Comp. also a striking pas- 
sage of the like tenor, in Wisd. xiii, 1—95. 

Εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους, 80 that they are without excuse. Fi; 
τό, followed by an Inf., is often used in the same manner as dors" 6. 6.» 
Luke ν. 17. Rom. iv. 18, vii. 4, 5. xl. ὃ. Εἰς τὸ x τ΄ A, is joined in 
sense with ὁ Seis γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσε (the first clause in ver. 20 being a 
parenthesis); ὁ. 6.) ‘God has exhibited, in his works, such evidences 
of his eternal power and Godhead, that those are without any ex- 
cuse who hinder the truth by reason of their iniquity” That the 
apostle means to characterize the heathen by all this, is clear from 
the sequel. 

(21) Διότι γνόντες τὸν Θεόν, because that having known God. The 
διότι here is considered by Gliéckler as co-ordinate with that in ver.» 
19; and both the clauses in vers. 19, 20, and in vers. 21—23 he con- 
siders as protases to διὸ x. τ. 2. in ver. 24 seq. He arranges the sense 
therefore in this manner: ‘ Because the knowledge of God was dis- 
closed to them, &c.,—/ecause, when they knew God, they did not 
glorify him, &c.,—4, thererore God gave them over, &c. But this 
is grounded upon an eutirely mistaken view of the nature of διότι; 
which can no more stand in the real protasis ofa sentence that is in- 
dependent of a preceding one, than γάρ can; as every one may see, 


ROMANS I. 21. 79 


by inspecting the examples of its use in the Concordance. Wemust 
consider the διότι in ver. 19, then, as prefatory to a reason why the 
heathen suppress the truth iniquitously; and the διότι in ver. 21 as 
prefatory to a reason why they are without excuse. In the same 
way γάρ often follows in two and even three successive clauses, pre- 
fatory to successive reasons for successive assertions 

Ρνόντες here is employed in a sense that comports with the meaning 
of τὸ γνωστὸν in ver. 19, and may mean either actual knowledge, or 
opportunity to know, being furnished with the means of knowing, 
having the knowledge of God plainly set before them. 

Οὐχ, ὡς... .. εὐχαρίστησαν, they glorified him not as God, neither 
were thankful ; ὃ. e., they paid him not the honour due to him as the 
Creator and Governor of all things, nor were they thankful for the 
blessings which he bestowed upon them. ‘The particle ἢ, after a 
negative clause, means nor, neither. 

᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐματαιώθησαν .... αὐτῶν, but indulged foolish imaginations 
or vain thoughts. So we may render the passage, if we follow the 
morecommon meaning of ματα όω, which not unfrequently corresponds 
to the Hebrew 22D, DDN, insipide, stulte agere. The Vulgate ren- 
ders ἐματαιώθησαν by evanuerant, and Erasmus by frustrati sunt ; and 
to the like purpose many critics have interpreted it. But the evi- 
dent intention of the writer seems here to be, to describe a state of 
mind or feeling, not to express the result of it.—Asaroysouo7s may be 
translated thoughts, reasonings, or disputations ; for the word has 
each of these senses. The first seems the most appropriate here, on 
account of the clause which immediately follows, and which shows 
that the state of the interior man is designed to be described. It 
should be noted, moreover, that διαλογισμός, as meaning thought or 
imagination, is commonly taken in malam partem, 1. 6.5) as designat- 
ing bad thoughts, evil imaginations, e. g., Matt. xv. 19. Mark vii. 21. 
Is. lix. 7 (Sept.) 1 Cor. i. 20. 

If we construe the words before us in this way, the sense will be: 
‘They foolishly or inconsiderately indulged evil imaginations,’ 7. 6.» 
base and degrading views respecting the nature and attributes of 
God, and the honour due to him, as thesequel (vers. 22—25) shows, 
_ particularly ver. 23. 

But there is another sense of the expression before us, which lam 


strongly tempted to adopt. The Hebrew 231, vanitas, ματαιότης, 
μάταια, a8 is well known, is often employed to designate idols and 


80 ROMANS I. 21, 22. 


idolatry. Hence μάταια is frequently employed by the Septuagint to 
designate idols; ὁ. g., 2 Kings xvii. 15. Jer. ii. 5. viii. 9. Amos ii. 4. 
1 Kings xvi. 13, &ce. So also in the New Testament, Acts xiv. 15. 
From this usage, as one might naturally conclude, the verb ματαιύω 
(which means literally 1 & + «1 0 v facere vel fieri) sometimes means, 
to be devoted to μάταια, ὦ. e., to idols; e. g.. 2 Kings xvii. 15. Jer. ii. 5. 
ἐματαιώθησαν, they became devoted to idolatry, or to vanities (which is 
the same thing). The phrase in our verse is plainly susceptible of 
the like rendering, viz., In their evil imaginations or by reason of 
their wicked devices, they became devoted to idolatry, or devoted to 
vanities (which has the same meaning). 

But on the whole, it is safer perhaps to regard the clause before us 
as a kind of parallel with the one which follows; in which case, the 
first asserts that the heathen foolishly indulged in wicked devices, 
and the second, that in consequence of this, their inconsiderate minds 
became darkened. The clause under examination will then be of the 
like tenor with ver. 22. 

Καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη. . . . καρδία, and their inconsiderate mind was dark- 
ened. Καρδία, like the Hebrew 2» very often means, animus, intel- 
lectus, the mind; and this is plainly its meaning here.— Ασύνετος 
means stolidus, insipiens, or imprudens, which latter word means, 
wanting in consideration and foresight. I hesitate between this 
meaning, and that of stolidus in the sense of the Hebrew 53) t. ἐδ 
impious, wicked. The καρδία which had foolishly indulged evil ima- 
ginations respecting God, may be truly characterised either as incon- 
siderate or as impious. On the whole, the latter seems to convey 
rather the most energetic meaning; but the former accords better 
with the idea, that the second clause (now under examination) is 
parallel with the clause which precedes it. 

It will be observed by the attentive reader, that the apostle here 
represents the darkening of the mind to be a consequence of the wicked 
imaginations which the heathen had indulged. Men had once a 
right knowledge of the true God; they all have opportunity to be 
acquainted with his true attributes. But in this condition, they 
choose foolishly to indulge in wicked devices and imaginations; and 
in consequence of this, they lose even what light they possessed, 
ἐσχοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετο; αὐτῶν καρδία. 

(22) Φάσκοντες..... ἐμωράνθησαν, professing themselves to be wise, 
they became fools. ‘The antithesis of the sentiment here is strong. 


ROMANS I. 23. 81 


The pretensions of many heathen philosophers to wisdom, are well 
known. From these sprung the names φιλόσοφοι, φιλοσοφία, σόφοι, σοφι- 
στα΄, &C. Φάσκχω means to declare, to affirm; which, in the present case, 
means the same as to profess. So the Greeks used φάσκω" 6.6.5 61 φίλοσο- 
geiv φάσκοντες, those who profess to philosophize. To the same purpose 
Cicero says: “ Qui se sapientes esse profitentur,” Quest. Tuse. I. 9. 

(23) Καὶ ἤλλαξαν. . . . ἑρπετῶν, and exchanged the glory of the 
immortal God, for an image like to mortal man, and fowls, and quad- 
rupeds, and reptiles. Τὴν δόξαν τοῦ aplderov Θεοῦ means the majesty 
and excellence of the eternal God, or the glorious and eternal God. 
In ἤλλαξαν... ἐν ὁμοιώματι, the Dative with ἐν before it follows the 
verb. In such cases the usual construction is to put the simple Da- 
tive after the verb, ὦ. ¢., the Dative of the noun designating the thing 
for which another is exchanged; 6. g., Lev. xxvii. 10, οὐκ ἀλλάξει 

. καλὸν πονηρῷ. Ibid. ἀλλάξῃ. . . . κτῆνος κτήνει. Lev. xxvil. 33. 
Ex. xiii. 13. The classic writers usually say, ἀλλάσσειν τί τινος, or τὶ 
ἀντί τινὸς" but sometimes ἀλλάσσειν τί τιν. I find no construction like 
this in ver. 23, except in Ps. cv. 20, wherein the Sept. ἠλλάξαντο τὴν 
δόξαν αὐτοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι μόσχου occurs. Tholuck says, that ἐν ὁμοιώματι 
stands for εἰς ὁμοίωμα" and he construes it here as meaning the trans- 
muting of one thing into another, i. 6.5 making out of one thing some- ᾿ 
thing different from it. But this is not the common use of ἀλλάσσω, 
in cases like ours, although the verb occasionally admits of this 
sense (see ver. 26 below, where, however, the Accusative with εἰς is 


employed). But usually it means to commute one thing FOR another 


(not to transmute one thing into another). Nor can it be the design 
of Paul to say, that the heathen changed the glorious and immortal 
God into an image of perishable man and animals, (for how could 
they do this?) but to say that they exchanged the former (as an ob- 
ject of worship) for the latter; which is the exact state of the case. 
Such being the fact, both as to the sense of the passage and the 
more usual construction of the verb ἀλλάσσω, 1 must regard ἐν ὁμοι- 
iwarr here as being of the same import and design as the simple 
Dative unattended with the preposition; of which examples are not 
wanting in the New Testament, and which Ps. cv. 20, confirms. 
Ἔν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος is like the Hebrew poy nv, the resemblance of 
the image, t. e.,an image resembling or like unto. Φθαρτοῦ is designed 
as the antithesis of ἀφθάρτου, and means frail, perishable, mortal. 
Πετεινῶν x. τ. Δ How extensively such idolatry as is here described, 
has been and still is practised among the heathen, is too well known 
F 


82 ROMANS I. 94. 


to need any formal proof in the present case. Juvenal (Sat. xv.) has 
drawn an admirable picture of Egyptian superstitions. The follow- 
ing lines are sufficiently graphic: 

* Quis nescit . . . . qualia demens 


/Egyptus portenta colat? Crocodilon adorat 
Pars hec; illa pavit saturam serpentibus Ibim. 


Oppida tota canem venerantur, nemo Dianam.” 


And after saying that they worshipped various productions of the 
earth, and even culinary vegetables, he exclaims: 


“Ὁ sanctas gentes, quibus hec nascuntur in hortis 


Numina !” 
+ 


Comp. Ps. exv. oxxxv. 15, seq. Is. xliv..9—17, where is a most vivid 
description, in some of its traits not unlike to the hints in Horace, 
Lib. I. Sat. 8. 

(24) Such was the impiety and folly of the heathen. Even their 
philosophers and learned men could not be exempted from part of 
the charges here brought against the Gentiles. On account of such 
sins, God even gave them up to their own lusts; διὸ καὶ ragédanev.... 
ἀκαθαρσίαν, wherefore God even gave them up, in the lusts of their 
᾿ hearts, to impurity; ἵν, e., God gave them over to the pursuit of their 
lusts, and to the dreadful consequences which follow such a course, 
because they were so desperately bent upon the pursuit of these ob- 
jects, and would hearken to none of the instructions which the book 
of nature communicated. The imputation is, that in apostatizing 
from the true God, and betaking themselves to the worship of idols, 
they had at the same time been the devoted slaves of lust; which in- 
deed seems here also, by implication, to be assigned as the reason or 
ground of their apostacy. Every one knows, moreover, that among 
almost all the various forms of heathenism, impurity has been either 
a direct or indirect service in its pretended religious duties. Witness 
the shocking law among the Babylonians, that every woman should 
prostitute herself, at least once, before the shrine of their Venus. It 
is needless to say, that the worshippers of Venus in Greece and Rome 
practised such rites: or that the mysteries of heathenism, of which 
Paul says “it is a shame even to speak,” allowed a still greater lati- 
tude of indulgence. Nor is it necessary to describe the obscene and 
bloody rites practised in Hindoostan, in the South Sea and the Sand- 
wich Islands, and generally among the heathen. Polytheism and 
idolatry have nearly always been a religion of obscenity and blood. 


‘ROMANS I. 24, 83 


This the apostle plainly intimates; for after saymg that men had 
substituted idols for the only living and true God, he immediately 
subjoins: ‘Wherefore God gave up them to pursue their lusts, who 
were so eager in pursuit of them.’ This of course is taking it for 
granted, that in plunging into polytheism and idolatry, they had at 
the same time plunged deep into the mire of impurity. How well 
such a representation accords with fact, the history of heathenism 
will testify most abundantly. It lies on the face of almost every 
“page, written in characters ‘ which he who runneth may read.’ 

The διό hers = διὰ ὅ, on account of which, for which reason. For 
substance it has the same sense with διότι; yet it is employed more 
frequently in the way of illation, while it has a more specifically 
relative meaning than διότι. Thus διότι in ver. 19, stands at the head 
of a declaration intended to illustrate and establish the truth of the 
preceding assertion; so again of διότι in ver. 21; but διό in ver. 24, 
stands at the head of an d/lation from all the preceding premises in 
verses 19—23. 

Tlasédwne, gave up, gave over, t.e., left them to pursue their own de- 
sires, without checking them by such restraints as he usually imposes 
on those who are not hardened and obstinate offenders. It seems 
here neither to denote an active ‘ planging into sin,’ on the one hand; 
nor a ‘mere inactive letting alone,’ on the other; but a withholding, 
by way of just retribution for their offences, such restraints as I have 
just described. The verb παραδίδωμι is commonly employed to desiy- 
nate delivering over to prison (Acts viii. 3), to bonds (2 Pet. ii. 4), 
to the executioner or condemning judge (Matt. xviii. 34, xxvii. 2, 
26). So here it is a giving or delivering over to the consequences 
of their own lusts, 7. 6.) a judicial abandonment of wicked heathen. 

Ἔν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις, in their lusts, i. e., God gave them up [being] 
in their lusts, εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν x. τ. A. But most critics construe ἐν hereas 
meaning by in the sense of on account of, by reason of. The sense is 
good, indeed, when rendered in this way, and the wsus loquendi 
above exception; see Bretschn. Lex. ἐν No. 6.ed.2nd. But I pre- 
fer to render it in the following way, viz. God gave up them livres 
being] in their lusts, &c.; i. ¢., he gave them up who were filled 
with lust, he gave them up to the pursuit of it, he abandoned them 
to the perverse desires of their own hearts, and to the consequences 
which would follow. In this Way, ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῶν καρδιῶν becomes 
equivalent to an adjective qualifying αὐτούς. Ofa usage like this in 
respect to the Dative, with ἐν before it, the New Testament affords 


84 ROMANS I. 25. 


most ample proofs; 6. g., Luke iv. 32, ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ jv ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ, hisword 
was powerful ; Rev. 1. 10, ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι, I was inspired; John 
XVI. 25, ἐν παροιμίαις λαλεῖν, Lo speak parabolically ; John v. ὃ, ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ 
ἔχων, being weak; Rom. xvi. 7, οἱ γεγόνωσιν ἐν Χριστῷ, who became 
Christians; and thus very often, as may be seen in Bretschn. Lex. 
ἐν, No. 5. Comp. Ps. lxxxi. 18. Ἔν employed in this way, may be 
called ἐν conditionis; inasmuch as the noun before which it stands, 
serves to designate condition, habitude, or relation. ᾿Ἐν thus em- 
ployed agrees with the so-called 2 predicate of the Hebrews, i. e., 2 
prefixed to a noun which is employed in the sense of an adjective. 

Eig ἀκαθαρσίαν, to the practice of impurity, where εἰς before the Ac- 
cusative denotes, as usual, the object for which any thing is, or is done. 
The sense is the same as εἰς τὸ ποιεῖν τὴν ἀκαθαρσίαν. 

Tod ἀτιμάζεσθαι. . . . ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, to dishonour their own bodies amona 
themselves, or that their own bodies should be mutually dishonoured 
(ἀτιμάζεσθαι in the Passive). Tot ἀτιμάζεσθαι is constructed after 
παρέδωκε implied. This kind of Infinitive (viz. the Infinitive with 
τοῦ before it) has, until recently, been generally reckoned as an imi- 
tation of the Hebrew Inf. with Ἂ; But Winer (N. Test. Gramm. 
§ 45. 4, ed. 38rd) has shown abundantly that it is no Hebraism, but 
is very common in the Greek classics; see my N. Test. Gramm. 
§ 138. The older critics used to solve this form of the Infinitive 
(where τοῦ intimates design, object, end), by supplying ἕνεκα or γάριν 
before it. Winer constructs τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι, in the present case, by 
making it the Genitive after ἀκαθαρσίαν. I prefer the other method, 
which makes the clause eperegetical. 

In respect to the fact of dishonouring their own bodies, i. e., sub- 
jecting themselves to base and degrading lusts, we shall see more in 
the sequel. 

Ἔν ἑαυτοῖς, among themselves. For this frequent sense of ἐν, see 
Bretschn. Lex, ἐν I. 6. 

(25) A repetition of the idea contained in ver. 23—xa) ἤλλαξαν 
κι το A, but with some additions. οἵτινες μετήλλαξαν. . . . ψεύδει who 
exchanged the true God for a false one. ᾿Αλήθειαν τοῦ Θεοῦ = τὸν ἀληθῆ 
Θεόν. More usually it is the latter of two nouns which is employed 
as an adjective in order to qualify the former: but sometimes the first, 
noun performs the office of an adjective; compare Heb. Gramm. § 440. 
b. Both ἀλήθειαν and ψεύδει are examples of the abstract for the con- 
crete; Velde corresponding to the Hebrew ban NY “PY, which are 
so often employed to designate idols. In regard to μετήλλαξαν... .. 


ROMANS I. 26. 85 


ἐν τῷ ψεύδει, See ON ἤλλαξαν. .. .. ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἴῃ verse 23. But ἀλή- 
de may be rendered true worship, and ψεύδει false worship. 

Καὶ ἐσεβάσυησαν. . . . κτίσαντα, and worshipped and served the crea- 
ture more than the Creator.— Σεβάζομαι signifies to venerate, to worship, 
and designates the state of mind in the worshipper. The Aorists 
passive often have the sense of the Middle voice, and so, therefore, 
not unfrequently have an active sense, as here: N. Test. Gramm. § 
61, 1. Λατρεύω designates either internal worship (see ver. 9 above), 

-or external. Here, as it is joined with σεβάζομαι, it more naturally 
designates the external rites of the heathen religion.—Tj κτίσει, the 
creature, created things ; see the close of verse 23.—Ila2é, more than, 
above ; compare Luke iii. 13. Heb. i. 4. iii. 3. ix. 23. xi. 4. &c.; and 
see Bretschn. Lex. σαρά III]. 2. e. But here the sense seems to re- 
quire παρά to be rendered, rather than, 

"Os ἐστιν. . . ἀμήν, who is blessed for ever, Amen. Doxologies of 
this nature are not unusual in the writings of Paul; see Gal. i. 5. 
Rom. ix. 5. 2 Cor. xi. 81. The Jewish Rabbies from time imme- 
morial have been accustomed to add a doxology of the like nature, 
whenever they have had occasion to utter any thing which might 
seem reproachful te God. The Mohammedans have borrowed this 
custom from them, and practise it toa great extent, Tholuck men- 
tions an Arabic manuscript in the library at Berlin, which contains 
an account of heresies in respect to Islamism; and so often as the 
writer has occasion tg name a new heretical sect, he immediately 
adds: ‘God be exalted above all which they say "᾿---- εὐλογητός means 
worthy of praise, deserving to be extolled, 

᾿Αμήν, the usual response of the Hebrew solemn assemblies to the 
words or precepts of the law, when read; see Deut. xxvii. 15—26. 
The Hebrew }28 means verum, certum, ratum sit 1. ¢., ita sit; which 
is the usual sense of ἀμήν in the New Testament, as in Rom. ix. 5. 
xi. 36. Gal. i. 5. Eph. iii. 21, et al. sepe. As to the custom of pub- 
lic religious assemblies in respect to using this word, see 1 Cor. xiv. 
16. It is to be understood as a solemn expression of assent to what 
has been said, and an approbation of it on the part of those who use it. 

(26) As ver. 25 is a repetition and amplification of the sentiment 
in ver. 23.; so vers. 26, 27, are a repetition and amplification of the 
sentiment in ver. 24. There is the same connection in both cases; 
6. g., after asserting the idolatry of the heathen in ver. 25, the apo- 
stle proceeds (as in ver. 24) to say: Asc& τοῦτο x. τ. A, ἡ. 6.) because they 
became idolaters and polytheists, God gave them up to the vile pas- 


86 ROMANS. I. 27. 


sions which they indulged in this species of worship. —Ava τοῦτο... 
ἀτιμίας on account of this [their idolatry] God gave them up to base 
oassions. For the sense of παρέδωκεν ὁ Θεός, see verse 24,—Tldby ἀτι- 
μίας, base passions, where ἀτιμίας (the latter of two nouns in regi- 
men) holds the place of an adjective, agreeable to common usage; 
see the remarks on verse 25. 

ΑἹ τε yao.... φύσιν, for their women exchanged their natural usage, 
into that which is unnatural or against nature. Ἰταρά not unfrequently 
has the sense here assigned, as may be seen in the lexicons; comp. 
Acts xviil. 13. So Plato raga φύσιν ἡδόνη, unnatural pleasure. Τὴν 
φυσικὴν χρῆσιν Means usus venereus. But whether the apostle refers 
here to the Greek τριβάδες or ἑταιρίστριαι, Or tO those who were guilty 
of prostituting themselves in the vile and unnatural manner men- 
tioned in verse 27, it would be difficult to determine; nor is it neces- 
sary. Those who wish to trace evidences of the facts alluded to, 
may consult Seneca, Ep. 95. Martial Epigr. I. 90. Athenzus, 
Deipnos. 13. p. 605. Tholuck on the State of the heathen World, 
in Neander’s Denkwiirdigkeiten, I. p. 143 seq., translated in the 
Biblical Repository, vol. 11. Sueton. Nero, 28. 

(27) ᾿Ομοίως τε καὶ. . . . ἀλλήλοις in Like manner, also, the males, 
leaving the natural use of the female, burned in their lust toward each 
other. Literally ὁμοίως τε καί may be rendered moreover, in like man- 
ner too. Τὲ καί 15 often employed in enumerating particulars, in order 
to designate an intimate connection between them. This it signifies 
in a more emphatic manner than z«/simply ; and in this respect the 
Greek τέ answers well to the Lat. gue. Tis employed rather to 
annex clauses than words, and in this respect differs from καὶ at the 
same time τέ is more commonly connected only with clauses which 
are not necessary to complete the sentence in itself, but are epex- 
egetical, i. 6.) serve for confirmation, illustration, amplification, &c. 
But in this instance some good Codd.,and many versions and fathers, 
read δέ instead of rz and δέ is preferred by many critics. 

The evidences of the fact here stated by the apostle are too nu- 
merous and prominent among the heathen writers to need even a 
reference tothem. Virgil himself, ‘ the chaste Virgil,’ as he has been 
often called, has a Corydon amabat Alewxin, without seeming to feel 
the necessity of a blush for it. Such a fact sets the whole matter 
in the open day. That at Athens and Rome πα δεραστία was a very 
common and habitual thing, needs no proof to one who has read the 
Greek and Latin classics, especially the amatory poets, to any con- 


ea rare ae Ξ 


λαό ὌΝ ay” 
a ἀν ΝΣ oe ee 
= - χὰ 


ROMANS I. 28. 87 


siderable extent. Plutarch tells us that Solon practised it; and Dio- 
genes Laertius says the same of the Stoic Zeno. Need we be sur- 
prised, then, if the same horrible vice was frequent in the more bar- 
barous parts of Greece and the Roman empire? Would God that 
nations called Christian were not reproachable with it; and that the 
great cities of the old world (possibly of the new also), did not ex- 
hibit examples of it almost as flagrant as those of Greece and Rome! 

ἔΑρσενες .. .. κατεργαζόμενοι. males with males doing that which is 


shameful. A further description of what the writer means, so as to 


leave no doubt about the design of the preceding affirmation. 

Καὶ τὴν. .. . ἀπολαμβάνοντες, and receiving in themselves the reward 
which is due to their error. The apostle doubtless means, here, the 
evil consequences, both physical and moral, which followed the prac- 
tices on which he is animadverting. In respect to the first, their 
bodies were weakened, their health impaired, and premature old age 
came on both in a mental and physical respect. With regard to the 
second, what else could be expected from those who sunk themselves 
far below the brute creation, but that their moral sense would be 
degraded, their conscience “seared with a hot iron,” and all the finer 
feelings and delicate sensibilities of life utterly extinguished? No 
example in the whole brute creation can be produced, which resem- 
bles the degradation of the παιδερασταί and it follows, by an immu- 
table law of a sin-hating God which is impressed on the very nature 
of all moral beings, that degradation and shame should result from 
the gratification of viler than beastly appetites. The despots, princes, 
and rich men of the East, who practise polygamy and keep extensive 
harems, are usually superannuated by the time they are forty years 
of age; how much more might this be naturally expected, as to the 
offenders mentioned in the verses under examination ? 

(28) Kai weeding . oe «iV ἐπιγνώσει, and inasmuch as they did not 
like to retain God in their knowledge. Δοκιμάζω usually means to try, 
prove, examine, &c. But a secondary sense of the word is, to ap- 
prove, to choose; like to δόκιμος approved, accepted, agreeable, &e. 
The apostle means here to say, that the heathen voluntarily rejected 
the knowledge of the true God, which, to a certain and important 
extent, they might have gathered from the book of nature so widely 
spread open before them—’ Exe ἐν ἐπιγνώσει may be considered as equi- 
valent to éxrywaoxen; or, which is still better, to designate that fail- 
ure to retain in their knowledge what God had revealed to them in the 
book of nature, which book the apostle accuses them of neglecting, 


88 ROMANS I. 29, 


Παρέδωκεν. .. . νοῦν, God gave them up to a reprobate mind. See 
on ver. 24 for ragidwxev.— Αδόκιμος is the negative or antithesis of 
δόκιμος" and therefore means reprobate, that which is to be rejected, 
unapproved. Beza has rendered this adjective as though it had 
a neuter active sense, a mind incapable of judging. But the 
usus loquendi will not bear this; although adjectives in τῆμος some- 
times have an active sense; see Buttm. ausfiihrl. Sprachl. 2 Abth. 
p- 841. The meaning here of ἀδόκημον νοῦν is wicked or vile mind, 
which is deserving of condemnation or execration. ‘There is here 
an evident paronomasia of ἀδοκήμον with ἐδοκήμασαν. 

Ποιεῖ τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα, to do those things which are disgraceful, i. e., 
which are indecorous, shameful. God, in his righteous judgment, 
abandoned those who practised such vices to the legitimate conse- 
quences of their own passions and conduct. : 

(29) Πεπληρωμένους, filled, full of, abounding in. The construc- 
tion, if completed, would be [ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς] πεπληρωμένους x. τ. 
Δ. ; 80 that πέπληρωμένους agrees with αὐτούς in the preceding verse. 
It is here followed by the Dative of the succeeding nouns; and so in 
some other cases, Wahl’s Lex. under σληρόω. The Genitive is more 
common after verbs of abounding. 

᾿Αδικίῳ is a generic word here, iniquity, sin, which comprehends all 
the particular vices that are afterwards named.—Togv</¢ is omitted in 
some manuscripts, viz. A. B. C., several younger MSS., and some of 
the versions and fathers. In some, it is placed after πονηρίᾳ. The 
enumeration seems quite incomplete without it; as it is a sin which 
most of all was universal among the heathen. In the New Testa- 
ment, the πορνεία has an extended sense, comprehending all illicit in- 
tercourse, whether fornication, adultery, incest, or any other venus 
illicita. See Bretsch. Lex. on the word. 

πονηρία, malice, t. e., versuta et fallax nocendi ratio, as Grotius de- 
fines it. Malice is a wicked desire or intention of doing harm to 
others, in a fraudulent and deceitful manner. This word is omitted 
in D. E. G. in codd. Clar. Boern.; which generally read, ἀδικίᾳ, 
κακίᾳ, πορνείᾳ, πλεονεξίᾳ, κι τ. A.—TlAsovezig, covetousness. Where luxury 
abounds, and devotedness to sinful pleasures, there a thirst for gold 
will also reign, because it is necessary to supply the means of plea- 
sare. Petronius strikingly represents Rome as covetous of the wealth 


of other nations, in the following manner :— 


. . + » Si quis sinus abditus ultra, 
Si qua foret tellus que fulvum mitteret aurum, 
Hostis erat, fatisque in tristia bella paratis 
Quezrcbantur ones. 


ROMANS 1. 30. 89 


Kazi, among the Greeks, was the antithesis of ἀρετή, when taken 
in. a generic sense. But when taken (as here) in a limited one, it 
means the habit of doing mischief, or harm to others in any way. 
It differs from πονηρία, malice, inasmuch as that more particularly 
designates a state of mind, and the craftiness by which the purposes 
it forms are to be executed. Κακία means any kind of énjurious 
treatment. 

Μεστούς is of the same meaning as πεπληρωμένους" but it seems to be 

introduced here merely for the sake of varying the construction of so 

many nouns. As it governs the Genitive, so the Genitive here fol- 
lows it, and this makes a variety in the construction. The ellipsis 
is as before, [παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς μεστοὺς x. τ΄ λ.----Φϑόνος, envy, Seems 
to be a widely spread passion of the human breast. It exists αὖ al- 
most all times and in all places, where one part of the community is, 
or is thought to be, more happy or distinguished than another. This 
passion was in the highest degree predominant at Rome.—®évs, mur- 
der or manslaughter, both public and private, legalized and forbid- 
den, was extremely frequent at Rome; e. g., the gladiatorial fights, 
the destruction of slaves, the executions by the Roman emperor’s 
orders, and deaths by poison, assassination, &c.—’Egs of course fol- 
lowed on in such a train.—A0os is strikingly exemplified by a verse 
of Juvenal: “ Quid Romee faciem? Mentiri nescio,” Sat. II. 41.— 
Καχοήΐθεια means malevolence, particularly that species of it which 
perverts the words and actions of another, and puts a wrong con- 
struction on them in order to gratify a love of mischief, when it was 
easy and proper to put a good construction upon them. It differs 
specifically, therefore, from πονηρία. 

(30) Ψιθυριστής means a slanderer in secret.—Karérarog, a slanderer 
in public.—Occorvys%, haters of God. Grotius says, it should be 
written ϑεοστύγεις, 7. e.. with the tone or accent on the penult, in order 
to have an active sense. But this is not necessary; for Suidas de- 
fines ϑεοστυγεῖς (oxytone) by of ὑπὸ ϑεοῦ μισούμενοι, καὶ of Sedby μισοῦντες. 
In the same manner Passow gives the meaning of the word. That 
the active sense is here required, the context clearly shows; inasmuch 
as the vices of men are here designated, not the punishment of them. 
---Ὑβριστάς, reproachful, i. e., lacerating others by slanderous, abusive, 
passionate declarations.— Ὑπερηφάνους, proud, ὁ. e., looking with dis- 
‘dain upon others, and thinking highly of themselves.— Αλαζόνας, 
boasters, i. ¢., glorying in that which does not belong to them, whether 

Ὁ wealth, learning, talents, or any thing else.— Εφευρετὰς κακῶν, inventors 


€ 


90 ROMANS I. 31, 32. 


of evil things. This doubtless refers to the inventions in luxuries, 
vices, &c., which were constantly taking place in the great cities of 
ancient times, where there was a competition in pleasures among the 
wealthy. Γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, disobedient to parents; a vice exceedingly 
common among the heathen, multitudes of whom cast out their 
parents, when they are old, to perish from hunger, or cold, or by the 
wild beasts. The accusative cases, throughout this and the follow- 
ing verses, are all governed by παρέδωκεν ὁ Θεός, brought forward from 
verse 28 in the mind of the writer, and to be supplied by the reader. 

(31) ᾿Ασυνέτους, enconsiderate or foolish ; compare verses 21, 22.— 
᾿Ασυνθέτους, covenant breakers, perfidious.— Αστόργους destitute of 
natural affection. The writer probably refers here, to the usual prac- 
tices among the heathen of exposing young children to perish, when 
the parents had more of them than they thought themselves able to 
maintain, or had such as they did not wish to take the trouble of 
bringing up. Tertullian (in Apologetico) repeats this accusation 
against them in a tremendous manner: “. . . . qui natos sibiliberos 
enecant . . . crudelius in aqua spiritum extorquetis, aut frigori et 
fami et canibus exponitis.”—' Ασπόνδους, implacable, qui pactum non 
admittit. Some manuscripts (A. B. D. E. G. et al.) omit the word; 
but still its authority does not seem fairly to be doubtful. This is 
a well-known trait of the heathen character, exemplified in a most 
striking manner by the Aborigines of this country.— Ανελεήμονας, des- 
titute of compassion, unmerciful. What, for example, are or were 
the provisions made for the poor and suffering, among the heathen? 

(32) Οἵτινες. . . . ἐπιγνόντες, who knowing the ordinance of God. 
᾿Επιγνόντες is here to be taken in the like sense with γνόντες in ver. 21; 
see the remarks on this. In Rom. ii. 14, 15, Paul asserts that ‘ the 
heathen who have no written law (revelation), are a law to them- 
selves, for they give evidence that the requisitions of the divine law 
are written upon their hearts.’ He refers of course, in these and 
the like expressions, to leading and principal traits of moral duty. 
So in our text, when he speaks of the Gentiles as knowing God, he 
means, that the disclosures made respecting God in the works of 
nature, and respecting the duties which he demanded of them in 
their own consciences or moral sense, were of such a kind as fairly 
to give them an opportunity of knowing something respecting the 
great outlines of duty, and of rendering them inexcusable for ne- 
glecting it. 

Τὸ δικαίωμα, statute, ordinance, precept. The Scyenty employ it 


ed μα i ee 


ences Rene MEY - αν 
eae a 


ROMANS I. 32. 9] 


often, in order to translate the Hebrew ΡΠ,. DAY, MsP. The use 
of δικαίωμα in such a way, seems to be quite Hellenistic. Suidas, 
however, defines it thus: δικαιώματα" νόμος, ἐντολαί. Clear cases of 
usage in such a sense, are 1 Mace. 1. 13. roid τὰ δικαιώματα, τῶν ἔθνων' 
-and Test. x11. Patriarch., ποιεῖν τὰ δικαιώματα Κυρίου, καὶ ὑπακούειν ἐντολὼς 
| Θεοῦ, Fabric. Cod. Pseudep. I. 603. 

What the δικαίωμα or PM is which the heathen knew or might 


have known, is now declared, viz., ὅτι oi... . εἰσίν, that they who do 
such things [such as he had just been mentioning], are worthy of 
death. As the affirmation here has respect to those who did not 
enjoy the knowledge of a written revelation, so death can hardly be 
taken in the full and exact scriptural sense of the word; (on this 
sense, see the remarks on Rom. v. 12). It must, however, be taken 
in a sense strictly analogous with this, viz., as meaning punishment, 


misery, suffering. The very nature of the term implies this. That 


the word Savérov is figuratively, not literally employed here, is suf- 
ficiently plain from an inspection of the catalogue of vices which the 
apostle had just named. Surely he does not mean to say, that al/ 
of these deserved capital punishment from the civil magistrate in the 
literal sense; and that this was a case so plain, that the heathen 
themselves clearly recognised it. 

A certain degree of vitiosity is manifested, by the commission of 
crimes or the practice of wickedness; in some cases a very high 
degree. But still, in many cases crimes are the result of a sudden 
impetus of passion and temptation, in the midst of which men aban- 
don reflection. It requires, therefore, in the main, a higher degree 
of depravity coolly to applaud and deliberately to justify and encour- 
age wickedness already committed or to be committed, than it does 
to commit it in the moment of excitement. Hence the apostle con- 
siders this as the very climax of all the charges which he had to 
bring against the heathen, that they not only plunged into acts of 
wickedness, but had given their more deliberate approbation to such 
doings. Od μόνον . . . . πράσσουσι, not only do the same things, but 
even commend those who do them. It is often the case, that wicked 
men, whose consciences have been enlightened, speak reproachfully 
of others who practise such vices as they themselves indulge in. 
Few profligate parents, for example, are willing that their children 
should sustain the same character with themselves. But when we 
find, as in some cases we may do, such parents encouraging and 


99 ι ROMANS I. 32. 


applauding their children in acts of wickedness, we justly consider 
it as evidence of the very highest kind of depravity. 

There is some variety in the readings of the MSS. and Versions, 
as to ἐπιγνόντες, but not enough to render its authority doubtful. 


It is of such depravity as this, that the apostle accuses the heathen. 
And justly; for even their philosophers and the best educated among 
them, stood chargeable with such an accusation, For example; 
both the Epicureans and the Stoics allowed and defended σα δεραστία 
and incest, numbering these horrid crimes among the ἀδιάφορα, things 
indifferent. Aristotle and Cicero justify revenge. Aristotle (Polit. 
I. 8) represents war upon barbarous nations to be nothing more than 
a species of hunting, and as altogether justifiable. The same writer 
justifies forcible abortion, Polit. VII. 16. Other philosophers repre- 
sent virtue and vice as the mere creatures of statute and arbitrary 
custom; or (to use the words of Justin) they maintain, μηδὲν εἶναι 
ἀρετὴν μηδὲ κακίαν, δόξῃ δὲ μόνον τοὺς ἀνθρώπους 4 ἀγαθὰ ἤ κακὰ ταῦτα 
ἡγεῖσθαι, that there is nothing either virtuous or vicious, but that 
things are made good or evil merely by the force of opinion. 

This is sufficient to justify the declaration of the apostle; for if 
philosophers thought and reasoned thus, what must the common peo- 
ple have done, who were more exclusively led by their appetites and 
passions? The picture is, indeed, a dreadful one; it is truly revolt- 
ing in every sense of the word. But that it is just, nay, that it ac- 
tually comes short of the real state of things, particularly on the 
score of impurity and cruelty, there cannot be the least doubt on the 
part of any man who is acquainted with the ancient state of the 
heathen world, and of Rome in particular. Poets, philosophers, and 
historians, have confirmed the words of Paul: and the relics of an- 
cient cities in Italy, (in pictures, carvings, statues, &c.)—cities de- 
stroyed near the time when the apostle lived—bear most ample testi- 
mony to what he has said of their lasciviousness and shameless pro- 
fligacy. One has only to add, with the deepest distress, that in 
many of the great cities of countries called Christian, there is fearful 
reason to believe that there are abominations practised in various 
respects, which even exceed any inventions of heathen depravity. 


κυ RG ΟΣ al belt δε, Soy et 


OL LAE no 


ROMANS I. 32. 90. 


How often is one obliged to exclaim with the apostle, παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς 
6 @<és! The evidence of this lies in more than beastly degradation. 

It has frequently been asked, whether the apostle intended here to 
draw a picture of the philosophers and sophists, or only of the com- 
mon people: whether he meant to say that αἰ the heathen were 
guilty of the vices which he names, or only a part of them, &c. The 
answer to these questions has in part been given above; and as to the 
rest, it seems not to be difficult. It is sufficiently plain, I trust, 
from the nature of the case, as has been already stated, that Paul 
does not mean to assert of every individual among the heathen, that 
he stood chargeable with each and every crime here specified. This 
is impossible. He means only to say, that these and the like vices 
(for surely they were guilty of many others), were notorious and 
common among the heathen; and that every individual capable of 
sinning, philosophers and common people, stood chargeable, in a 
greater or less degree, with some of them. In this way he makes 
out a part of his main proposition, viz. that all men are under sin ; 
consequently that all are in a lost condition, or in a state of condem- 
nation. ‘These declarations being established, it follows of course 
that all men need a Saviour, and can be delivered from the curse of 
the divine law, only by means of atoning blood, which procures gratut- 
tous pardon for them. 

That the apostle has been here describing the heathen, is clear 
from verses 20—23, where all that is said applies in its proper force 
only to them. 

That the heathen had a moral sense, is clear from Rom. ii. 14, 
15. One may even suppose it to be probable that some of them did, 
to a certain extent, obey this internal law; at least, we may well 
suppose that they could obey it. This seems to be implied in Rom. 
ii. 26, and perhaps in Acts x.35. Itis on this basis that the apostle 
grounds his charges of guilt against them. They knew, at least they 
might have known, that what they did was against the law of nature, 
against their consciences, against their internal persuasion with re- 
spect to right and wrong. Consequently they were verily guilty in 
the sight of God; not for transgressing the precepts of a revelation 
never made known to them, but for violating a law that was within 
them, and shutting their eyes against the testimony of the natural 
world. Most clearly and fully does the apostle recognise and teach 
all this, Rom. ii. 12—16, 26,27. Consequently no one can accuse 
God of injustice, because he blames and condemns the heathen; for 


94 ROMANS I. 32. 


he makes the law which was known to them the measure of their 
blame and condemnation (Rom. ii. 12, seq.), and not a revelation 
with which they were not acquainted. 

When this subject, therefore, is contemplated in its full and proper 
light, it becomes clear, that neither the accusations of the apostle, 
nor the deductions which he makes from them, are subject to any 
just exception. ‘Thus far his argument is good, and conclusive. It 
is clear that the Gentiles need a Saviour; it is equally clear that 
they need gratuitous justification, and that they must perish without 
such a provision for them. It remains then to be seen, whether the 
saine things can be established with respect to the Jews. 

On the method of establishing the declaration which the apostle 
makes concerning the depravity of the Gentiles, it may be proper 
here to add a single remark. He goes into no formal argument. In 
the passage which we have been considering, he does not even appeal 
(as he sometimes does, Tit. 1. 12), to the testimony of their own 
writers. ‘The ground of this must be, that the facts were plain, pal- 
pable, well known, and acknowledged by all. To mention them 
merely, was to establish his allegation; the appeal being made to the 
certain knowledge of every reader. In particular, he was well as- 
sured that the Jewish part of his readers would call in question none 
of the allegations which he made in relation to the vices of the 
Gentiles. There was no need, therefore, of any more formal proof 
on the present occasion. A plain statement of the case was suffi- 
cient. We shall sce that the writer occupies more time, and makes 
greater effort, to confirm his declarations respecting the Jews. 

Reiche, in his recent Commentary (p. 173 seq.), labours to show, 
that the giving over of the heathen to their lusts, &c., must mean an 
active hardening of them, or demoralization of them on the part of 
God. This, however, he does not consider as the apostle’s real 
opinion, but only his argument κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον, ἵ, e., in conformity with 
the Jewish prejudices and modes of argument in respect to the hea- 
then. In like manner he considers the criminality which the apostle 
attaches to idol-worship, in verses 21—25, to be an allegation κατ᾽ 
ἄνθρωπον. One is pained to meet with not a few remarks of this na- 
ture, in a work as valuable in many respects as the Commentary of 
this writer is. What means the second commandment? And what, 
all the zeal testified through the Old Test. against the sin of idol- 
worship? And how was the apostle to convict the Gentiles at Rome, 
by employing a mere xar’ ἄνθῥωπον, Jewish opinion or prejudice, as an 


ROMANS I. 32. G5 


argument against them? Neither the frankness, the sincerity, nor 
the good sense of the apostle, will permit me to accede to the senti- 
ments of Reiche. 


CHAP. II. 1—29. 


THE apostle, having thus concluded his short but very significant view of the heathen world, 
now turns to address his own nation, the Jews, in order to show them that they stood in need 
of the mercy proffered by the gospel, as really and as much as the Gentiles. But this he does not 
proceed to do at once, and by direct address. He first prepares the way by illustrating and en- 
forcing the general proposition, that all who have a knowledge of what is right, and approve of 
it, but yet sin against it, are guilty; and as really so (for at first he goes no farther than this) as 
those who are so blinded as net to see the loveliness and excellence of virtue, and who at the 
same time transgress its precepts. This he does in verses 1—10; in which, although he had the 
Jews constantly in mind, he still advances only general propositions, applicable in common to 
them and to others; thus preparing the way, with great skill and judgment, for a more effectual 
charge to be made specifically against the Jews, in the sequel of his discourse. Such a view of his 
discourse will render easy the solution of the agitated question: Whom does Paul address in 
verses 1—8? Le Clerc supposes that he addresses the heathen philosophers; but Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, and Grotius, and others, that he addresses heathen magistrates. It seems quite plain, 
at least to my miad, that he directly addresses neither the one nor the other of these here, nor 
any other particular class of men; but that he employs general propositions only, in the verses, 
before us; and this, merely for the sake of preparing the way to convince the Jews, and to show 
that they too, as well as the Gentiles, are in a state of condemnation. In ver. 11 he first com- 
mences the direct attack (if so it may be called) upon the Jews, and continues it more or less di- 
rectly, to chap. iii. 19. 

The words of Turretin (Expos. Epist. Pauli ad Rom. in cap. II.) are so much to my purpose, 
that I cannot forbear quoting them. “ Postquam ostendisset apostolus epistole sux capite primo, 
Gentes ex propriis operibus justificari non potuisse, eo quod deploratissimus eorum status esset ; 
idem jam Judzis capite IT. demonstrare aggreditur. Verum id facit dextre nec mediocri solertia, 
statim ne nominatis quidem Judzis, positisque generalibus principiis, quorum veritatem et equi- 
tatem negare non poterant; quo facto, sensim eorum mentionem injicit; tandemque directe eos 
compellat, vividaque et pathetica oratione eorum conscientiam pungit, facitque ut de propriis 
peccatis volentes nolentes convincantur. Et in his quidem omnibus, deprimit supercilium Judx- 
orum, qui ceteras gentes summo contemptu habebant, iisque se longe meliores et Deo acceptiores 
gloriabantur. At vero, non negatis Judzorum ad cognitionem quod adtinet prerogativis, osten- 
dit eos, ad mores quod spectat, que pars est religionis longe precipua, Gentibus haudquaquam 
meliores fuisse, proindeque Dei judicio et damnationi haud minus obnoxios fore.” 

So far as the contents of the present chapter then are concerned, we have, in verses 1—8, the 
general considerations already named; in vers. 9—16, the apostle shows that the Jews must be 
accountable to God as really and truly, for the manner in which they treat the precepts contained 
in the Scriptures, as the heathen for the manner in which they demean themselves with respect to 
the law of nature; and that each must be judged, at last, according to the means of grace and 
improvement which he has enjoyed. 


In verses 17—29 he advances still farther, and makes a direct reference-to-the Jew alone.. 
νὰ “ἷΪ." , ᾿»ν ὦ." 


fg i.) 7 4 - -- 
i?” <  ---* - ὩΣ ἊΝ 


96. ROMANS It. 1. 


He shows here, that those who sin against higher degrees of knowledge imparted by revelation, 
must be more guilty than those who have offended merely against the laws of nature; 7. ¢., he 
plainly teaches the doctrine, that guilt is proportioned to the light and love that have been mani- 


fested, and yet been abused. The very precedence in knowledge, of which the Jews were so proud ἢ 


and so prone to boast, the apostle declares to be a ground of greater condemnation, in case those 
who possessed it sinned against it; a doctrine consonant as truly with reason and conscience, 28 
it is with the declarations of the Scriptures; compare John iii. 19. xv. 22—24. ix. 41. | 


(1) Ad... . χρίνων, therefore thou art without excuse, O man, every 
one that condemneth, or whosoever thou art that condemneth.—Asé 
here has been made the subject of much discussion. The point of 
difficulty respecting it is, to show how it stands connected as an ila- 
tive particle, with the preceding discourse. _ As it is made up of διά 
and ὅ, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the word is, in its own 
proper nature, i/lative. To my own mind, the connection appears to 
be thus: ‘Since it will be conceded, that those who know the or- 
dinances of God against such vices as have been named, and still 
practise them and applaud others for doing so, are worthy of punish- 
ment; it follows (διό, therefore) that all who are so enlightened as to 
disapprove of such crimes, and who still commit them, are even yet 
more worthy of punishment.’ The apostle here takes the ground, 
that those who were so enlightened and instructed by revelation as 
to condemn the vices in question, would of course sin against motives 
of a higher kind than those which influenced the heathen who were 
possessed of less light. It must be conceded, indeed, that συνευδοκοῦσι 
in i. 32 is designed to aggravate the description of the guilt which 
the heathen incurred, (and in fact it does so); yet it will not follow, 
that the sin of these heathen would not have been still greater, had 
they enjoyed such light from revelation, as would have led them 
fully to condemn those very sins in their own consciences, while they 
yet practised them. The main point, in the present chapter, seems 
to stand connected principally with the greater or less light as to 
duty. The heathen with less light went so far in vice as even to 
approve and applaud it, as well as to practise it; the Jew with more 
light was led irresistibly, as it were, to condemn such sins, but with 
all this light, and against all the remonstrances of his conscience, he 
violated the same precepts which the heathen violated. Now what 
the apostle would say, is, that he who sins while he possesses light 
enough to condemn the vice which he practises, is really and truly 
guilty, as well as he who sins while approving it. He takes it for 
granted that his readers will concede the point which he has asserted 


Ἱ 


a 
"τὰ 
4 
Ἂ 
᾿ 
τ 
μι 
Ἐ 
Ni 
᾿ 

i 

5 


ROMANS I. 1. 97 


respecting the guilt of the heathen; hence he draws the inference 
(8), that on the like grounds they must condemn every one, who, 
like the Jew, sins against the voice of his conscience and against his 
better knowledge. 

In like manner Flatt (Comm. iiber d. Romer) makes out the con- 
nection of διό here: “ διό, because thou knowest τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ" 
because thou knowest, that according to the divine decision they are 
worthy of punishment who practise such vices; because thou thyself 
_dost acknowledge this wieogane Θεοῦ" so thou canst not excuse thyself 
‘for committing ‘the like.sina?> 

As to πᾶς ὁ κρίνων, the proposition made Ὅν it is indeed general; 
but this is plainly a matter of intention on the part of the writer. He 
means to include the Jews init; but at the same time he commences 
his remarks on them in this general way, for the very purpose of 
apprvaching gradually and in an inoffensive manner the ultimate 
point which he has in view. | 

Ἔν @ γὰρ.... κατακρίνεις, for in respect to the same thing [which] 
thou condemnest in another, thou passest sentence of condemnation 
upon thyself; or, in condemning another, thou passest sentence on thy- 
self.i— Ey ᾧ, in respect to, with reference to; it may be translated, 
because that, inasmuch as, like the Hebrew WS}. The latter 
method would represent the apostle as saying: ‘For the very act of 
condemning another, is passing sentence upon thyself” I prefer the 
former method, which represents him as saying: ‘ Thou who con- 
demnest, dost pass sentence on thyself in respect to the very point 
which is the subject of condemnation ;’ 7. e., thou who condemnest 
the practice of the vices just named, inasmuch asthou practisest the very 
same vices, thou dost come under thine own condemnation. ‘That 
κρίνω has oftentimes the same sense substantially as xaraxgivw, every 
good lexicon will show. Such may be the case here; compare Matt. 
vii. 1. Luke vi. 37. Rom. xiv. 3, 4, 10, 18, 22..1 Cor. iv. 5. Col. 11. 
16; or we may render the passage thus: ‘ With that [sentence] 
whieh thou dost pass,’ or ‘while thou passest sentence’ (ἐν @ while, 
Mark ii. 19. Luke v. 3. John v. 7), viz. on the heathen, ‘ thou 
dost condemn thyself? 

The γάρ in this clause is γάρ tllustrantis vel confirmantis: for the 
sentiments which follow are designed to show, that πᾶς ὁ κρίνων is in- 
excusable, inasmuch as he stands chargeable himself with the very 
crimes which he censures in others. 

Τὰ yag.... ὁ πρινων, since thou who condemnest, doest the same 

G 


98 | _- ROMANS II. 2. 


things. The apostle asserts this, and leaves it to the conscience of 
his readers to bear witness to the truth of it, and to make the applica- 
tion. He has not yet named the Jews; and therefore the charge is 
only implied, not expressed. As in the case where the woman taken 
in adultery was brought before the Saviour, and he said to her 
accusers: “ He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone,” and 
all withdrew because of conscious guilt ; so here, the apostle says: 
‘Every one who condemns the heathen for the crimes specified, [he 
was well aware that the Jews did this with a loud voice], condemns 
himself, because he is guilty of the like vices” How is this shown? 


Not by any arguments or testimonies; for Paul knew that these were | 


unnecessary. He knew that the consciences of his readers would at 
once bear witness to the truth of his allegations. Therefore he leaves 
it to their consciences. But still, external testimony to the facts 
alleged is not wanting. ‘That the Jews of this period were grossly 
corrupt, is certain from the accusations which Jesus so often brought 
against them, as recorded in the Gospels. We may make the appeal 
to Josephus also, and in particular to the description which he gives 
of Herod and his courtiers. 

The γάρ in the present clause is also inserted, because this clause 
is designed to confirm the preceding one, and to show how he who 
judged did condemn himself. 

(2) οὔδαμεν d.... πράσσοντας, for we know that the judgment of God 
ts according to truth, against those who do such things. ‘The δέ here 
is rather difficult of interpretation. A proper and simple continua- 
tive of discourse it may occasionally be; but such a sense without 
some indication of diversity or antithesis, is not usually to be at- 
tached to it. Not unfrequently it assumes the place of a causal 
particle, and is equivalent to γάρ; not because δέ of itself has the same 
signification as γάρ, but because it connects sentences, or parts of 
sentences, which have a causal relation. ‘In such cases,’ says Pas- 
sow, ‘it may be translated denn, i. e., for, since, &e. Here I take 
the connection of thought to be simply this: ‘ ‘Thou art without ex- 
cuse, who, &c.’... ἡ, ¢., thou shalt not escape condemnation, ‘ for 
we know that the judgment of God, &c.’ Reiche gives δέ an adver- 
sative sense; and to doso, he makes the sentiment opposed to be the 
supposition that ‘God would not judge men.’ But the preceding 
context does not supply this; and the above method of interpretation, 
which is grounded on the context, is more simple and obvious, and 
is equally conformed to idiom.—Keiza Θεοῦ means sentence of con- 


c 


ROMANS Il. 3. 99 


demnation on the part of God, Θεοῦ being Genitivus auctoris.—Kark& 
ἀλήθειαν may be construed in various ways; viz. (1) It may be taken 
(as usual in the classics) for truly, verily ; 2. 6.57 just in the same sense 
as ὄντως, ἀληθῶς. This would make a good meaning in our verse; but 
not the best. (2) It may mean the same as κατὰ δικαιοσύνην, agree- 
ably to justice, inasmuch as ἀλήθεια often means vera religionis doc- 
trina, vera atque salutaris doctrina, &c. So Beza, Tholuck, and 
others. (3) A better sense still seems to be, agreeably to the real state 
of things, in accordance with truth as it respects the real character 
sustained by each individual. ‘The sentiment then is: ‘Think not | 
to escape the judgment of God, thou who condemnest the vices of 
the heathen, and yet dost thyself practise them; whatever thy claims 
to the divine favour on account of thy birth or thy spiritual advan- 
tages may be, remember that the judgment of God will be according 
to the true state of the case, according to the real character which 
thou dost sustain.’ I prefer this method of interpretation, as it ren- 
ders the verse more significant, while the usws loquendi is fully re- 
tained. 

Τὰ τοιαῦτα, such things, viz. such as he had just been mentioning. 
Observe that the apostle does not accuse the πᾶς ὁ κρίνων here of the 
very same things in all respects, (as αὐτά in the preceding verse might 
at first view appear to intimate); but he speaks of him who con- 
demns as doing τὰ τοιαῦτα. Nor is it to be understood by this, that 
every individual among the Jews, or even that any one, was charge- 
able with each and every vice which he had named. Enough that 
any one or more of these vices might be justly charged on all. And 
even if it could be said, that there might be individuals who gave no 
external proofs to men that they were guilty of any of these vices ; 
there certainly were none who were not more or less guilty, in the 
sense in which our Saviour declares in his Sermon on the Mount 
that men may be guilty of murder and adultery, 7. ¢., spiritually, in- 
ternally, mentally. ᾿ 

(3) Δογίζῃ δὲ. « -. Θεοῦ, dost thou not think this, then, O man, who 
condemnest those that do such things, and doest the very same things, 
that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Δέ, says Flatt, appears 
to stand for od» but why, he hasnot shown. Bretschneider has bet- 
ter explained it in his lexicon: “A... . addit vim interrogationi.” 
Aé being in its proper nature adversative, it is very naturally em- 
ployed in replies, answers, or questions whivh are designed to be in 
opposition to something which another may have said, or may be 


100 ROMANS 11. 4. 


supposed to cherish in his thoughts. It gives energy to the reply in 
Greek; but it cannot always be translated into our own idiom, whose 
particles are often so insignificant compared with the Greek ones. In 
the present case, I know not what can be done with δέ better than to 
render it then, which makes the sentence in English approach very 
near to the energetic form of the Greek. 

The sense of the verse appears to be as follows: ‘Thou who 
condemnest others for vicious indulgences and still dost thyself prac- 
tise the same, dost thou suppose, that while they cannot escape thy 

condemning sentence, thou canst escape the sentence of him who 

is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity?’ Well has Chrysostom 
paraphrased it: τὸ σὸν οὐκ ἐξέφυγες κρίμα, καὶ τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ διαφεύξῃ; thou 
hast not escaped thine own condemnation; and shalt thou escape that 
of God? 

(4) Ἢ rod... . καταφρονεῖς, or dost thou despise his abounding 
goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering? The word πλοῦτος 
is often employed by Paul in order to designate abundance, copious- 
ness; 6. g., Eph. 1. 7. 0. 7.1. 18.11.16. Rom. ix. 23. xi. 33, et alibi. 
The Seventy frequently employ it to translate 1) and 1, Here 
πλούτου supplies the place of an adjective, and means abundant or 
abounding ; comp. Heb. Gramm. ὃ 440. b. 

Χρηστότητος, kindness, benignity. ᾿Ανοχῆς, literally holding in, i. 6.» 
checking or restraining indignation, forbearing to manifest displeasure 
against sin. Maxgobuwias, longanimitas, DBS FS slowness to anger, 
Jorbearance to punish. Both words (ἀνοχῆς, and μακροθυμίας) are of 
nearly the same import, and serve, as synonymes thus placed usually 
do, to give intensity to the expression. The meaning is as if the 
apostle had said: ‘ Despisest thou his abounding kindness and dis- 
tinguished forbearance to punish ? 

Καταφρονέω means to treat with contempt, either by word or by 
deed. ‘The apostle means to say here, that all the distinguished 
goodness which the ὁ χρίνων enjoyed, in consequence of his superior 
light, was practically neglected and contemned by him, inasmuch as 
he plunged into the same vices which the ignorant heathen prac- 
tised. 

᾿Αγνοῶν. .. . ἄγει, not acknowledging that the goodness of God 
leadeth thee to repentance. ᾿Αγνοῶν in the sense of not recognizing or 
acknowledging. Τινώσκω and the Hebrew ¥7} often mean to recognize, 
to acknowledge; as may be seen in the lexicons.—'T) χρηστόν, i. q., 
χρηστότης, by acommon usage of the Greek tongue; compare τὸ γνωστόν 


ROMANS It. ὅ. 101 


in 1. 19.—’Ayer, l2ads; but as verbs often designate a tendency 
towards the action which they usually designate, as well as the spe- 
cific action itself, so here the tendency or fitness to accomplish the 
end is designated; compare John v. 21, ἐγείρει, has the power or fac- 
ulty to raise up; ζωοποιεῖ, has the power of giving life; Rom.i. 21, 
_ yuivres, having opportunity to know. ‘Lhe sentiment is, that the 
goodness of God which the ὁ χρίνων enjoys in a peculiar manner, and. 
which is manifested so highly in his forbearance to punish, is in- 
“tended to teach him gratitude for his blessings, and of course sorrow 
(μετάνοιαν) for his offences in-respect to that course of conduct which 
such a principle woulddictate. Let the reader compare, for the sake 
of deeply impressing on his mind so important and striking a sen- 
timent, the passages in 2 Pet. 1. 9. Ezek. xviii, 23, 82. xxxii. 11. 
(5) Κατὰ δὲ .... xc ρδίαν, according to thine obstinacy, however, 
and impenitent heart, or according to thy hard and impenitent heart. 
A: naturally connects sentences or clauses which are more or less 
antithetic; but the antithesis is sometimes implied merely, by what 
is said in the context, and not expressed. Here I take the antithetic 
sentiment to be: “ Thou art indeed hoping to escape the judgment 
of God, but instead of this thou art heaping up treasures of wrath, 
&e.” Δέ, here rendered however, naturally refers back to ver. 3, and 
is properly adversative to the thought which the impenitent man 
cherishes. Σχληρότης means insensibility of heart or mind, a state in 
which one is not duly affected by considerations presented to his 
mir d.— Awseravinroy χαρδίαν means a heart not so affected as to 
sorrow for sin, through the goodness of God which is designed to 
produce such an effect. It is by such spiritual insensibility or stu- 
pidity, that a sinner is aggravating his condemnation ; so the next 
clause. 
} Θησαυρίζεις .... τοῦ Θεοῦ, thou art treasuring up for thyself wrath 
inthe day of wrath, when the righteous judgment of God shall be 
revealed. Θησαυρίζεις, to treasure up, ὦ. 6.5 to lay up-in store, to accu- 
mulate, to increase. In -the choice of this term, there is a tacit 
reference of the mind to the preceding τοῦ πλούτου τῆς χρηστότητος"--- 
Σεαυτῷ, for thyself, Dativus incommodi (as grammarians say); com- 
_ pare Rom. xiii. 2. Matt. xxiii. 31. James v.3. See N. Test. Gramm. 
ὃ 104. 2, Note 1.— Οργήν, wrath, includes also the punishment which 
is the natural consequence of wrath. A day of punishment is called, 
in the Old Testament, 87‘) DY, Oy? OM, MT AS DP, ὦ, 2, a day when 
the displeasure of Jehovah is manifested. 


102 ᾿ΒΟΜΑΝΒΑ͂, IL 6, 7. 


Ἔν ἡμέρῳ ὀργῆς; ἴ. Coy ὀργὴν [τὴν ἐσομένην] ἐν ἡμέρῳ ὀργῆς, indignation that 
will be shown or executed in the day of indignation, or punishment, 
——Kai ἀποκαλύψεως καὶ δικαιοκρισίας May be taken 88 ἃ Hendiadys, and 
rendered of revealed righteous judgment. The meaning is: ‘When 
God’s righteous judgment shall be revealed, 7. ¢., in the great day of 
judgment.’ Griesbach, with a majority of MSS., omits the second 
zai; Which makes the reading more facile. 

(6) “Os ἀποδώσει. . .. αὐτοῦ, who will render to every man accord- 
ing to his works, i. e., who will make retribution to every man, ac- 
cording to the tenor of his conduct. The sequel shows what distine 
tion the supreme Judge will make between men of different charac- 
ters. "Ἔργα means here, as often elsewhere, all the developments 
which a man makes of himself, whether by outward or inward 
actions; compare John vi. 27. Rey. xiv. 13. xxii. 12, The word is 
indeed more commonly used to designate somethnig done externally; 
but it is by no means confined to this sense. Thus ἔργα γόμου means 
any work which the law demands; ἔργα Θεοῦ means such works as 
God requires; and in cases of this nature it will not be said, I trust, 
that God and his law do not require any thing but external works, 
It is truly surprising to see how many theories respecting future re- 
ward, have been made from this verse. ‘The apprehension that Paul 
here contradicts salvation by GRACE, and makes it to depend on the 
merit of works, has no good foundation. The good works of the re- 
generate are imperfect. No man loves God with all his heart and 
his neighbour as himself. But there is some real goodness in the 
works of the truly sanctified; and this will be rewarded, imperfect as 
it is, not on the ground of law (which would demand entire perfection), 
but on the ground of grace, which can consistently reward imperfect 
good works. Thus the grace of the gospel and the reward here pro- 
mised to good works, are altogether consistent. But those who re- 
main impenitent and unbelieving, stand simply on law-ground as to 
acceptance, and must therefore be punished according to the measure 
of their sins. 

(7) Τοῖς wiv... . αἰώνιον, to those who by patient continuance or 
perseverance in well-doing, seek for glory, and honour, and immor- 
tality, or immortal glory and honour, [he will render] eternal life or 
happiness. —‘ Ὑπομενήν means perseverance or patient continuance, — 

Κατά, before the Accusative, frequently designates the modus in 
which any thing is done, or the state and condition in which it is; 
6. 7.) κατὰ τάξιν, κατὰ ζῆλον, κατὰ γνῶσιν, &c.—' Εργου here has the epithet 


a ey - 


ea 


ROMANS II. 7. 103 


ἀγαθοῦ, ἴῃ order to distinguish it from the generic ἔργα used in the 
preceding verse. 

Δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν is cumulative or intensive; ὦ. 6.) it 
expresses happiness or glory of the highest kind. We may trans- 
late the phrase thus: immortal glory and honour, making ἀφθαρσίαν ἡ 
an adjective to the other nouns; or we may render it, glorious and 
honourable immortality, or honourable and immortal glory. 1 prefer 
the first. The idea is, indeed, substantially the same inall; but all 
_ do not seem equally congruous as to the method of expression. The 
joining of τιμή and δόξα in order to express intensity, is agreeable 
to a usage which is frequent inthe New Testament; 6. g., 1 Tim. i. 
17. Heb. ii. 7, 9. 2 Pet. i. 17. Apoc. iv. 9, 11. So the Hebrew, 
TN} ἍΝ. 

The interpretation given above is the usual one, for substance, 
adopted by the great body of the commentators. But Reiche strenu- 
ously contends for the following arrangement: τοῖς μὲν [ἀποδώσει], καθ᾽ 
ὑπομενὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ, δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν, ζητοῦσι ζωὴν αἰώνιον, Ve 6.» 
‘to those [will he render], according to their perseverance in well- 
doing, glory and honour and immortality, [even to those who] seek 
eternal life. But when he says, in defence of this, that it is incon- 
gruous to speak of SEEKING glory, and honour, and immortality, and 
therefore ζητοῦσι must be joined with ζωὴν αἰώνιον, 1 acknowledge my- 
self incapable of perceiving the weight of his argument. What is 
glory, but future happiness? What is honour, but the divine appro- 
bation? And what is immortality, but the perpetuity of these? 
And what is there more incongruous in seeking these, than in seek- 
Ing ζωὴν αἰώνιον᾽ ζητεῖν, means to labour for, earnestly to desire, to 
strive for with effort ; and all this the Christian certainly may and 
must do, in respect to glory, and honour, and immortality. The 
suggestion, that ‘to seek after immortality would have no sense, be- 
cause we are and must be immortal,’ does not apply in this case; for 
it is not after immortality simply considered that we are to seek, but 
after an immortality of glory and honour. Besides, there is such an 
unnatural chasm between τοῖς and ζητοῦσι, in case we adopt the inter- 
pretation of Reiche, as should be admitted only from necessity ; 
which does not here exist. | 

The μὲν at the beginning of the verse is the μὲν προτάσεως, 1. 6.» μέν 
designating the protasis in a sentence; the ἀπόδωσις here is verse 8, 
which commences with 62 apodotic, 7. e., marking the apodosis, and 
standing as the counter-part of μέν in verse 7. 


104 ROMANS It. 8. 


(8) Τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας, but to those who are contentious. ᾿Εκ (ἐξ) be- 
fore the Genitive of a noun, is often employed as an adjective in de- 
signating some particular description of persons or things. Thus 
ὁ ἐξ odcavoi == οὐράνιος ἡ ἐκ φύσεως, natural; τὸν ἐκ πίστεως, credens; ὁ ἐξ 
ὑμῶν, ψοιιγ)5; οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς, the circumcised; so the classical οἱ ἐκ στοᾶς, 
&c. The objections of Gléckler against such a sense οὗ ἐξ, have no 
good foundation. ‘The apostle means here to designate those who 
contend against God, or rebel against him. The Seventy use ἐρεθίζω 
in order to translate 1, Deut. xxi. 20. xxxi. 27. What it means, 
moreover, is explained in the next clause by ἀπειθοῦσ. The deriva- 
tion of ἐριθείας from ἐριθεύω, to work in wool, to make parties, &e., is 
quite unnatural. It doubtless comes from ἔρις, ἐρεθίζω, as the sense of 
the word in the N. Test. clearly shows. 

Kai ἀπειθοῦσι. . . . ἀδικίᾳ, and are disobedient to the truth, but obe- 
dient to unrighteousness. Were (in a subordinate member of the 
apodosis of the sentence begun in verse 7) is a second μέν which is 
protatic, and another δέ apodotic. ‘The contrast of the two respective 
clauses in which they stand, is made very plain by ἀπειθοῦσι and πειϑο. 
μένοις. The exact expression of this μέν and δέ, cannot be made out 
by any translation which the English language will permit. We 
have no words capable of designating such nice shades of relation as 
μέν and δέ signify here, and in like cases; shades very plain and 
palpable indeed to the practised critic in Greek, who, however, is 
still left without the power of expressing them in his own vernacular 
language. I have not in this case attempted an exact translation, 
for the reason just mentioned. The nearest to the original that I 
am able to come, is by the following version: even those who disobey 
indeed the truth, but obey unrighteousness. How imperfect an 
exhibition this is of the nicer colouring of the Greek expression, 
every one must feel who has “διὰ τὴν ἕξιν τὰ αἰσθητήρ 210 γεγυμνασμένα 
πρὸς διάκρισιν." 

"Arndcig here means true doctrine. As the proposition of the 
apostle is general here, i. e., as it respects all, whether Jews or Gen- 
tiles, who disobey the precepts of religion and morality, so ἀληθείᾳ 
must be taken ina latitude that embraces the truth of both natural 
and revealed religion. On the other hand ἀδικίῳ means that which 
is unrighteous, that which the truth forbids, it being here (as in i. 18) 
the antithesis of ἀληθείᾳ. 

᾿Οργὴ καὶ Simos, indignation and wrath. Ammonius says, ϑύμος μέν 
ἐστι πρόσκαιρος, ὀργὴ δὲ πολυχρόνιος μνησικακίᾳ, t, 6.7 ϑύμος ts of short dura- 


ΨΥ Y= a> mi the” 


ROMANS II. 9. 105 


tion, but ὀργή is a long-continued remembrance of evil. There seems, 
however, to be no important difference between the two words, both 
meaning excitement, the feeling of strong excitement, indignation, &c. 
In the case before us, the expression appears to be merely, intensive ; 
which (as usual) is effected by the accumulation of synonymous 
terms. In respect to the construction of these nouns in the Nomina- 
tive case, it is an evident departure from the structure in the preced-_ 
ing verse, where ζωὴν αἰώνιον is in the Accusative governed by 


“ἀποδώσει understood. Here ὀργὴ καὶ ϑύμος are the Nominative to 


ἔσονται implied. Such departures in the latter portion of a sentence, 
from a construction employed in the former part of it, grammarians 
call ἀνωκόλυθον' which means, that a construction begun, is not fol- 
lowed up or completed in the like manner. 

(9) Θλέψις καὶ στενοχ ὡρία are words which correspond to ὀργὴ καὶ 
Simos, and designate the effect of the latter. The meaning is, intense 
anguish, great suffering. ‘The literal sense of the words, according 
to their etymology, would be pressure and narrowness or want of: 
room ; but the literal sense is abandoned, and the tropical one here 
employed. It is evident, at first sight, that the ninth verse is a 
repetition of the general sentiment contained in verse 8; while the 
10th verse repeats the sentiment of verse 7. This repetition, how- 
ever, is evidently introduced with the design of making a specific 
application of the threatening, and of showing definitely whom the 
apostle means to include in what he had said. 

The construction in verse 8 is followed in verse 9; inasmuch as 
ἔσονται 18 plainly implied after SAMis καὶ στενοχωρία. These two words, 
used in the way of expressing intense suffering, are often joined by 
classic writers: and so in Hebrew we have 53} ΠΝ 15, xxx. 6. 

᾿Επὶ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου, [great distress shall be] upon every soul 
of man, i. e., uponevery man. In Hebrew, the soul of the righteous, 
of the wicked, of the poor, of the rich, of the hungry, of the thirsty, 
&c., means the righteous, the wicked, &c. So here, the soul of man 
means man; ἢ. e., by metonymy, a leading or conspicuous part of 
man, is put for the whole person.—'Iovduiou . . . . Ἕλληνος, first of 
the Jew, and then of the Grech; i. e., the Jew, to whom a revelation 
has been imparted, shall be judged and punished first in order, be- 
cause he sustains a peculiar relation to revealed truth which calls 
for this; compare i. 16. Here the apostle comes out and openly 
shows, that what he had been thus far saying only in general terms, 
is applicable to Jews as well as to Greeks. 


106 ROMANS 11. 1O—12. 


(10) δόξα δὲ... . Ἕλληνι, but glory, and honour, and peace, to 
every one who doeth good, first to the Jew, and then to the Grech. 
That is, both threatenings and rewards are held out to the Jews and 
Greeks, in the same manner, and on the same condition. With God 
there is no προσωποληψία. This verse isa repetition of verse 7, with 
the addition of ᾿Ιουδαΐου τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνος. But here εἰρήνη is 
substituted for ἀφθαρσίαν there. The meaning of εἰρήνη can be best 
made out by considering it as the opposite of that enmity and dis- 
guietude in which unsanctified men are involved, as it respects God. 
We might translate, but happiness glorious and honourable, &c. 
The meaning of the whole is plain. Jntensity of affirmation is 
intended. 

(11) οὐ γὰρ.. .. Θεῷ, for with God there is no partiality, or no 
respect of persons. ‘The Hebrew 523 ΝΣ means to deal partially, 
to look not at things, but at persons, and pass sentence accordingly. 
The phrases πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν or βλέπειν, and also προσωποληψία, are 
entirely Hebraistic in their origin; the classic writers never employ 
them. ‘The apostle here explicitly declares, that there is no differ- 
ence in regard to the application of the general principle which he 
had laid down, the Jew as well as the Greek being the proper 
subject of it. The γάρ at the beginning of the verse is γάρ conjir- 
mantis ; t. e., §it will be that the one shall be punished and the other 
rewarded according to divine declaration, for (γάρ) there is no par- 
tiality, &e.’ 

(12) A confirmation or explanation of what he had just said in 
the preceding verse; for if God judges every man according to 
the advantages which he has enjoyed, then there is no partiality 
in his proceedings ; and that he does, the present verse explicitly de- 
clares. 

“Ooo γὰρ. . . . ἀπολοῦνται, since as many as have sinned without a 
revelation, shall perish without a revelation. Νόμος, like the Hebrew 
ΠΡ, often means the Scriptures, the revealed law ; e. g., Matt. xii. 5, 
xxii. 36. Luke x. 26. John viii. 5, 17. 1 Cor. xiv. 21. Gal. iii. 10. 
Matt. v. 18. Luke xvi. 17. John vii. 49, et alibi. Here most plainly 
it means the revealed law, revelation, or the Scriptures; for verse 15 
asserts directly that the heathen were not destitute of all law, but 
only of an expressrevelation. The classical sense of ἀνόμως would 
be unlawfully, = παρανόμως But plainly this meaning is here out of 
question. 

᾿Ανόμως ἀπολοῦνται means, that, when adjudged to be punished, they 


ΣΟΥ i ΧΙ i “ἃ “»,.ν.. 


- /_ 


Ἤσουν ἄλλω 


"tees 


ey RD 


an 


” YY 7 one, ‘ 7 Lae Fac | dues Rm. 


NOTE atoms care 


ROMANS I. 13, 14. 107 


shall not be τὰ by the precepts of a revealed law with which they 
have never been acquainted, but by the precepts of the law of nature 
which were written on their own hearts; see verse 15. 

Καὶ ὅσοι. . . . χριθήσονται, and so many as have sinned under revelu- 
tion, will be condemned by revelation. Here νόμος is employed in the 
sense pointed out in the preceding paragraphs. Ἔν νόμῳ in a state of 
law, i. e., of revealed law or revelation, with ἐν conditionis, as we 
may callit; for ἐν 15 often put before nouns designating the state, con- — 


‘dition, or relation of persons or-things; see Bretschn. Lex. ἐν, No. 5. 


It is equivalent to ἔννομοι, 1 Cor. ix. 21, νόμον ἔχοντα, Rom. 11. 14. The 
sentiment is, that those who enjoyed the light of revelation (as the 
Jews had done) would be condemned by the same revelation, in case 
they had been transgressors. The ὅσοι employed in this verse is of 
the most general signification = quicunque ; οἵτινες would have a rela- 
tive and limited sense. 

(13) This declaration is followed by another which is designed to 
illustrate and confirm it, and which is therefore introduced with ano- 
ther γάρ (γάρ illustrantis et confirmantis). Οὐ yee... . δικαι- 
ὠϑήσονται, for not those who hear the law are just with God, but those 
who obey the law shall be justified; i. e., not those to whom a revela- 
tion has been imparted, and who hear it read, are counted as righteous 
by their Maker and Judge, but those who obey the law shall be 
counted righteous. The apostle here speaks οἵ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ τοῦ νόμου, 
because the Jews were accustomed to hear the Scriptures read in 
public, but many of them did not individually possess copies of the 
sacred volume which they could read. The sentiment is: ‘ Not 
those who merely enjoy the external privilege of a revelation, have 
any just claim to divine approbation ; it is only those who obey the 
precepts of such a revelation, that have any ground to expect this. 

(14) To this sentiment the apostle seems to have anticipated that 
objections would be made. He goes on to solve them, or rather to 
prevent them by anticipation. He had said that Jew and Gentile, 
without distinction, would come under condemnation for disobedience 


᾿ς to the divine law, and also be rewarded for obedience (verses 9, 10); 


he had declared that there is no partiality with God, and that all 
would be judged by the precepts of law (verses 11, 12); he had in- 
timated that those who were the hearers of the law (the Jews) would 
not on that account be accepted, but only those who obey it. It was 
natural now for some objector to say: § The Gentiles have no reve- 
lation or law; and therefore this statement cannot be applied to them, 


108 ROMANS I. 14. 


or this supposition cannot be made in relation to them.’ The answer 
to this is, that the Gentiles have a law as really and truly as the 
Jews, although it is not written on parchment, but on the tablets of 
their hearts. That verse 14 is designed to illustrate the fact, that 
the Gentiles are under a law, in the same manner as verse 13 (οἱ 
ἀκροαταὶ τοῦ νόμου) is designed to show that the Jews are under a law, 
there seems to be no good reason to doubt. The γάρ then in verse 
14. is γάρ tllustrantis et confirmantis. 

An objection to this has often been made, viz. that in this way we 
may represent the apostle as affirming, that there were some of the 
heathen who did so obey the law as to be just before God. But this 
15 ἃ mistake. The apostle no more represents the heathen as actually 
attaining to this justification here, than he represents the Jew as ac- 
tually attaining to it in verse 13. Surely he does not mean to say 
in verse 13, that there are any Jews who are actually ποιηταὶ τοῦ νόμου 
in the sense which he attaches to this phrase: compare chap. iii. 19, 
20, 23, 27, 30, 31. He is merely illustrating a principle, in both 
cases. The Jew expected justification on account of his external 
advantages. ‘No,’ says the apostle, ‘ this is impossible; nothing but 
entire obedience to the divine law will procure justification for 
you, so long as you stand merely on your own ground. And here 
the heathen may make the like claims. If you say that a heathen 
man has no law, because he has no revelation; still I must insist 
that he is in as good a condition with respect to actual justification, 
as you Jews are; for although he has no Scripture (and in this 
respect, no law), yet he has an internal revelation inscribed on his 
heart, which is a rule of life to him, and which, if perfectly obeyed, 
would confer justification on him, as well and as truly as entire 
obedience to the written law could confer it upon you. The prin- 
ciple is the same in both cases. You can claim no pre-eminence in 
this respect.’ 

It is plain, then, that the apostle is only laying down, or illus- 
trating a principle here, Nov relating a historical fact; and this 
being duly apprehended, all difficulty about the sentiment of the 
passage isremoved. Certainly there is no more difficulty in ver. 14, 
than must arise in regard to the sora? τοῦ νόμου of ver. 13. The 
writer means to say neither more nor less, than that the Gentiles may 
have the same hind of claims to be actually justified before God as the 
Jews (which of course has an important bearing on ver. 11); but, 
as the sequel shows most fully, neither Jew nor Gentile has any 


ROMANS It. 15. 109 


claim at all to justification, since both have violated the law under 
_ which they have lived. 

dio... . ποιῇ, do in their natural state such things as revelation 
requires. Φύσις, in a Classical sense, means the nature or natural 
state of a thing, the natural condition of any thing; just in the same 
way as we use the word nature in our own language; 6. g., the 
Greeks said ὁ χατὰ φύσιν ϑάνατος, natural death; ὁ κατὰ φύσιν πατήρ, 
natural father ; φύσιν ἔχει γένεσθαι, it naturally happens, &c. In the 
verse before us, φύσει is equivalent to τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα" 2. 6.5 it desig- 
nates those who were acquainted with the only precepts of natural 
religion, and were destitute of a special revelation. In respect to 
the dative case (φύσει), it is the common method to which the’Greeks 
have recourse, in order to express the state or condition of any thing ; 
t. e., Dativus conditionis. As to τὰ τοῦ νόμου, it means either éeya νόμου 
_ (see ver. 15), or else δικωιώματα viuovr, ὧς. Those things belonging 
to the law designates, of course, such things as the law requires. 

Οὗτοι . . . . εἰσι νόμος, these having no law, are a law unto them- 
selves. The construction is changed when οὗτοι (masc. gender) is 
employed; which is constructio ad sensum, ἄνθρωποι being understood. 
What is meant by ἑαυτοῖς εἰσι νόμος, is explained in the follow- 
ing verse. : 

(15) Oirmes . . . - αὑτῶν, who show that the work which the law 
requires is written upon their hearts. Oirweg refers to the Gentiles. 
-- Τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου, the work or duty of the law, i. ¢., that which the 
law demands. So, plainly, this much controverted passage should 
be rendered, if we compare it with other phrases of the like tenor ; 
θ. 5., 1 Thess. 1. 3, ἔργου τῆς πίστεως, work such as faith demands’; 
. 2 Thess. 1. 11, ἔργον πίστεως, such work as faith requires ; John vi. 28, 
‘What shall we do that we may perform ra ἔργα τοῦ Θεοῦ, such works 
as God requires ; to which the answer is (ver. 29.) ‘rd ἔργον τῦῦ Θεοῦ, 
the work which God requires, is, that ye should believe, &c.; John 
ix. 4, τὰ ἐργα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, works enjoined by him who sent me ; 
2 Tim. iv. 5, ἐργον εὐαγγελιστοῦ, duty which the evangelical office de- 
man.ts; et sic alibi. With these plain cases of usage before us, there 
is no need of endeavouring to prove (with Palairet, Wolf, Schleus- 
ner, and others), that ἐργον is here merely periphrastic, 7. e., that ἐργον 
τοῦ νόμου means the same as νόμος. That such a usus loguendi 1s not 
unknown to the Greeks, may indeed be shown; 6. g., τὸ τῆς φιλισοφίας 
ἔργον, ἐνιοί φασιν, ἀπὸ βαρβορων ἄρξαι, philosophy (some say) took tts rise 
from barbarians. Aristotle (Rhet. i. 15. 6) says: coset τὸ egyev τοῦ 


110 ROMANS It. 15. 


νόωου, to do what the law requires. The periphrastic use of χρῆμα 
and πράγμα in this way, is well known. - But it is wholly unneces- 
sary to have resort to this, when the expression égyov νόμου can be so 
easily explained without it. It means plainly, such work, or duty 
as the law requires. 

This, ὦ ¢., precept enjoining this, is written on the hearts or minds 
of the Gentiles. Τραστόν is of course to be understood figuratively; and 
the idea conveyed by the whole expression is, that the great precepts 
of moral duty are deeply impressed on our moral nature, and co-exist 
with it, even when it is unenlightened by special revelation. There 
seems also to be an allusion in γραστόν to the written law of the Jews; 
this was written on tablets, that on the heart. Καρδία, like the He- 


brew 29, very often stands for mind as well as heart. Τραστὸν ἐν τας 
καρδίαις is used as the antithesis of γραπτὸν ἐν πλαξὶ λιϑίναις, which 
characterized the revealed law of Moses; 2 Cor. iii. 3. 

What was meant by the expression just considered, the apostle 
goes on to show by adding two epexegetical clauses. Συμμαρτυρούσης 
αὐτῶν τῆς συνειδήσεως, their conscience bearing witness, viz., τῷ αὐτῷ, to 
it, to the same ἔργον νόμου. That is, the evidence that what the law 
of God requires is inscribed on the minds of the heathen, is the tes- 
timony of their consciences to such moral precepts. Some under- 
stand συμμαρτυρούσης as meaning, that the conscience bears testimony 
in conjunction with the heart or mind. But I apprehend this not 
to be the meaning of Paul. Compound verbs, like συμμαρτυρέω, not 
unfrequently have substantially the same sense as the simple forms, 
or the same with a little intensity. So in respect to συμμαρτυρέω, an 
undoubted instance of such usage occurs in Rom. ix. 1. And in 
our text, written in their hearts or minds is explained by adding, the 
conscience bearing testimony, viz., to the precepts in question. This 
is the evidence that these precepts are engraved upon the minds of 
natural men. The apostle does not mean to say, that there are two 
testimonies, one of the mind and another of the conscience; but that 
the conscience testifies to the fact which he had alleged in regard to 
the mind. 

The apostle now adds a second confirmation of the fact, that the 
demands of the moral law are inseribed on the heart of men in a 
state of nature; viz., καὶ μεταξὺ. .. . ἀπολογουμένων, their thoughts 
alternately accusing or excusing them. Μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων, between 
each other, at mutual intervals, alternately, %. e., in succession, first 
one kind of thoughts, i. ¢., approbation; then another kind, «. e., dis- 


———————— jpn 


| 
q 


7 
: 
ς 
‘ 
J 
Ἂ 


ROMANS 11. 16. 111 


_ approbation.—Acyioués means ratiocination, judgment, reflection. It 


designates a more deliberate act of the mind than a mere ἐνθύμημα or 
ἐνθύμησις.."-Κατηγορούντων, accusing, in case the actions were bad; 
ἀπολογουμένων, defending, incase they were good. After each of these 
participles, ἑαυτούς or &végwroy is implied. - 

The meaning of this clause is not, as has frequently been sup- 
posed, that one man blames or applauds another, or that men mutu- 
ally blame and applaud one another, (although the fact itself is true); 
but that in the thoughts or judgment of the same individual, appro- 
bation or condemnation exists, according to the tenor of the actions 
which pass in review before him. Thus the voice of conscience, 
which proceeds from a moral feeling of dislike or approbation, 
and the judgment of the mind when it examines the nature of 
actions, unite in testifying, that what the moral law of God requires 
is impressed in some good measure on the hearts even of the hea- 
then. , 

Those commit a great mistake, then, who deny that men can 
have any sense of moral duty or obligation, without a knowledge of 
the Scriptures. The apostle’s argument, in order to convince the 
Gentiles of sin, rests on a basis entirely different from this. And if 
it be alleged, that in this way the necessity of a revelation is super- 
seded; Lanswer, not at all. The knowledge of some points of moral 
duty, or the power to acquire such knowledge, is one thing; a dispo- 
sition to obey the precepts of natural religion is another. The latter 
can be affirmed of few indeed among the heathen of any age or na- 
tion. Again; faculties adapted to discover the path of duty are one 
thing, the use of them so as effectually to do this is another. The 
former the apostle asserts; the latter he denies. And justly; for 
after all, what have the heathen done and said which renders the 
gospel in any measure unnecessary? Little indeed; in some respects 
we may say, nothing. What authority had their precepts over them ? 
And how was it with them as to doubts and difficulties about some 
of the plainest principles of morality? Their minds were blinded by 
their passions. Hence the voice within them was not listened to; 
but this does not prove that God left himself without sufficient wit- 
nessamong them. The apostle most plainly and fully asserts that he 
did not. 

(16) Ἔν ἡμέρῳ. . . . ἀνθρώπων, in the day when God shall judge 
the secret things of men. But with what must we connect ἐν ἡμέρᾳ; 
Most commentators have said; ‘ With χριθήσονται verse 12, making 


112 ROMANS It. 16. 


verses 13, 14, 15, a parenthesis.’ So Grotius, Limborch, Wolf, 
Knapp, Griesbach, and others. ‘This would then compare, as to con- 
struction, with Rom. i. 2—6. v. 13—18, and many other passages in 
Paul’s epistles. 

Others, as Beza, Heumann, Winer, join ἐν ἡμέρᾳ with δικαιωθή- 
σονται at the end of verse 13, and make verses 14, 15, a parenthesis. 

Bengel and Chr. Schmidt join ἐν ἡμέρῳ with ἐνδείκνυνται IN Verse 15, 
making the sentiment to be, that in the day of judgment it will ap- 
pear manifest to all, that men’s consciences have testified in favour 
of the law of God, &c. 

Somewhat different in sense from this, is the exegesis of Jerome, 
Theodoret, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Gicumenius, Calvin, Eras- 
mus, and others; viz., that ἐν ἡμέρῳ stands connected immediately 
with the participles κατηγορούντων and ἀπολογουμένων" which makes the 
passage to mean, that in the judgment day the consciences of the 
heathen will accuse them of all that Paul has charged upon them. 
Several of these commentators, however, think that Paul means only 
to say, that a fortiori their consciences will then accuse them; with- 
out meaning to say, that they do not accuse them in the present life. 

To this last interpretation Tholuck seems to accede. But I can- 
not accord with this exegesis, because the object of the writer, in 
verses 13—15, seems plainly to be merely a justification or confirm- 
ation of what he had said in verse 12, viz., that the heathen who had 
no revelation, still had a law which they were bound to obey, and by 
which they must be judged. How does Paulestablish this? By an 
appeal to the fact that they have a conscience or a moral sense, and 
that they pass judgment of a moral nature upon their own actions. 
To say that this conscience and moral sense will be developed at the 
judgment-day, is saying what is not sufficiently apposite to his pur- 
pose. At the judgment-day, the heathen will be tried by what ? 
By the law under which they were placed, and under which they 
acted, in the present life. Whatwas this law? That of conscience 
or moral sense. Then the accusing and excusing, which are appealed 
to as evidence of this moral sense, are exercised in the present world; 
i. é. its exercise here must of course be appealed to in order to sustain 
the apostle’s argument, by which he designs to establish theirpresent 
guilt, 

For these reasons I must accede to the prevailing opinion among 
critics, viz. that ἐν ἡμέρῳ is either to be joined with κριθήσονται in ver. 
12, and that vers. 13—15 are a parenthetic explanation or confirma- 


ROMANS Ir, 16. 113 


tion of ver. 12; or (which 1 think preferable) make verses 11—15 
parenthetic, and unite ver. 16, ἐν ἡμέρῳ x τ. 2. with ver. 11. 

Τὰ κρυπτά augments the force of the affirmation; ‘God will not 
only bring into judgment the external actions of men, but all their 
secret thoughts, desires, and affections’ Tholuck understands it as 
referring to the secret judgment of the mind orconscience, mentioned 
in the preceding verse, and makes the sense to be, that God will 
bring into open judgment all the secret judgments ofthe mind. But 

_ does this accord with the nature of the case? It is not the moral 
judgment of the mind, when it accords with the decision of the divine 
law (as is here supposed), which the apostle means to represent as 
judged by God; for these are not matters of punishment, when they 
are correct; but it is the secret wickedness of men, as well as their 
open vices, that will make the final judgment a time of awful terror. 
That such a view of the subject is here intended, seems to me quite 
plain; and so Turretin, Flatt, and most others. To the very same 
purpose Paul speaks in 1 Cor. iv. 5, where he represents the day of 
judgment as the time, when God will bring to light r& xgurra τοῦ 
oxérous . . . . καὶ τὰς βουλὰς τῶν καρδίων. 

Κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μου, according to the gospel which I preach; 
compare 2 Tim. 11. 8. 1 Cor. xv. 1. Some have understood this of 

_ ἃ written gospel of the apostle; but without any good critical or his- 
torical evidence. 

Διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, by Jesus Christ. Compare Acts xvi 31. John νυ. 
27, 22. xvi. 2. Acts x. 42. 

By affirming that God will judge τὰ κρυπτά according to his gos- 
pel, Paul seems to intimate, that a judgment-day is not plainly re- 
yealed by the light ofnature; or, at least, that the extent of the 
sentence which will be passed at that time, is not understood by the 
heathen. 

Notions of reward and punishment, in some form or other, belong 
to almost all the systems of heathenism; but such explicit views ofa 
judgment-day as the gospel gives, are nowhere else to be found. 

As the secrets of all hearts ar’e to be revealed and judged, in the 
great day of trial, what but Omniscience is capable of passing sen- 
tence? To God alone is ascribed the power and prerogative of 
searching the heart: see 1 Sam. xvi. 7. 1. Chron. xxviii. 9. xxix. 17. 
Ps. vil. 9. Jer. xi. 20. xvii. 10. Rom. viii. 27. To Christ the same 
power is ascribed in Acts i. 24. Rev. ii. 23, besides the present pas- 
sage. How can the Supreme Judge of all the human race be less 

H 


114 ROMANS 11. 17. 


than omniscient ; How can he do full and impartial justice, with 
any knowledge short of omniscience ? 

(17) The attentive reader cannot he:p observing the skill and 
address which Paul exhibits in this chapter. His object is, to show 
that his kinsmen the Jews are equally guilty with the Gentiles, or 
even more so; and consequently that salvation by grace is the only 
salvation which is possible for them. But knowing the proud and 
selfish feelings which the Jews possessed in regard to this subject, he 
does not assail them at once, but gradually, and with great address. 
In verses 1—8 of the present chapter, he discusses the subject on 
general grounds, bringing forward considerations applicable either to 
Jew or Gentile, but not once naming either. In verses 9—16 he 
makes the application of these considerations to both,and shows why 
both are to be considered as transgressors of the divine law, the one 
having sinned against the revelation contained in the Scriptures, the 
other against that which the book of nature discloses. 

But he has not yet done with the subject. Guilt is proportioned 
to light and love abused. He ventures therefore, in the next place, 
to prefer a heavier charge against the Jews than he had done against 
the Gentiles. He takes them on their own ground; admitting, for 
the sake of argument, all the claims to pre-eminence which they were 
accustomed to advance, he then shows that these only increase their 
guilt so much the more, in case of disobedience. 

Ei δέ. . .. ἐπονομάζῃ, if now thou art surnamed Jew. The read- 
ing ἦδέ, (from which comes our English version Jehold), is found in 
very few manuscripts, and is of no good authority. The only diffi- 
culty with εἰ δέ is, that it makes a πρότασις, to which there seems at 
first view, to be no corresponding ἀπόδοσις. However, this is not in 
reality the case; for vers. 21 seq. make in substance an apodosis. 
The relation between the two parts stands thus: ‘ If now thou art 
called a Jew, &c., ὦ, e., if thou dost in fact enjoy a high pre-eminence 
as to privileges, . . . . then how dost thou transgress the very law 
which thou teachest, and of which thou dost make thy boast ?’ 

"Iovdatos, a name of honour, much coveted by the Jews; comp. 
Gal. ii. 15. Phil. ii. 5. Rev. 11. 9.—’Exovoud%n, more formal and 
solemn than ὀνομάζῃ. It is appropriate also; inasmuch as ᾿Ιουδαῶς 
is a surname, which may be added to the individual name of every 
Hebrew. 

"Exavarain τῷ «ὄμῳ, thou restest upon the law, or thou leanest 
upon the law, ᾿Επαναπαύω corresponds to the Hebrew, 3, to lean 


ROMANS 11. 18. 115 


upon, to restore, to prop up one’s self by; see in the Sept. 2 Kings 
vii. 2, 17. ἐπανεπαύετο τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ. This verb is also used in the 
sense of adhering to; see 1 Mace. vill. 12. Hither meaning gives a 
good sense in the verse before us. I prefer the first, as being the 
more usual sense of the word, and altogether apposite. The Jew 
leaned upon the law, as defending his claims to precedence and to 
acceptance with God.—Né«w of course means here the MJosaie law, 
or the Jewish Scriptures. 

Kai... . Θεῷ, and gloriest in God; i. e., dost claim to thyself 
honour or glory, because Jehovah, the only living and true God, is 
thy God; compare Deut. iv. 7. Ps. exlvii. 19, 20. 2 Sam. vii. 23. It 
was on this account that the Jew felt himself so far elevated above 
the Gentile, and so disdained all comparison with him. As to the 
construction of καυχᾶσαι with ἐν and the Dative case, see Wahl on 
the word. The form xavyéou, 2nd person singular, is the old form 
of the second person passive and middle (καυχάεσαι) contracted. See 
New Testament Gramm. § 71. 5; also on verse 23. 

(18) Kal... . διαφέροντα, and art acquainted with [his] will, 
and canst distinguish things that dijfer. Ywooxes, knowest, art ac- 
guainted with, designates what the Jews were accustomed to say of 
themselves ; of if viewed simply as a declaration of the apostle, the 
meaning is: ‘ Thou hast the means of knowing, thou art instructed 
in’ Τὸ ϑέλημα, his will; where almost all the commentators say 
that αὐτοῦ or τοῦ Θεοῦ is to be supplied after ϑέλημα. But this is un- 
necessary ; for, as is well known, the article frequently has the sense 
of a pronoun; see Middleton on the Greek article, chap. I. ὃ 3 6. 5.» 
_ Acts xvii. 28, τοῦ γὰρ γένος ἐσμέν, for we are of HIS γένος. See New 
Testament Gramm. § 94. 

Δοκιμάζεις May mean either to distinguish or to approve; the 
word having both these meanings in the New Testament and in the 
classics. So διαφέροντα may mean things that differ, or things that 
excel; tne usus loquendi in both senses being equally certain. 
Tholuck explains the phrase as meaning: ‘Thou approvest the 
things which are excellent.’ I prefer the other sense, because the 
idea of knowledge or instruction is the one here intended to be urged; 
as is plain from the sequel. Such being the case, to distinguish 
things that differ is more: characteristic of this, than the other ren- 
dering is, and therefore more appropriate. Things that differ, are . 
virtue and vice, 7. ¢., lawful and unlawful, praiseworthy and base 


things, &c. So Reiche. 


110 ROMANS Ir. 19—21. 


Κατηχούμενος ἐκ τοῦ νόμου being instructed by the law; 7%. 6.) being 
taught or enlightened by the Scriptures. 

(19) Téwodds re... . σκότει, thou art confident moreover that 
thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light to those who are in 
darkness. This is figurative language, designed to show in a strong 
light the claims to superiority over the Gentiles, which were made 
by the Jews. A guide to the blind signifies one who is an instructor 
by means of superior knowledge, ¢. ¢., an instructor of those who 
are in a state of gross ignorance, viz., the Gentiles ; see Matt. xv. 14. 
-- Φῶς τῶν ἐν σκότει, the same idea by the use of another figure. 
Compare Is. xlix. 6. Luke ii. 32. John i. 8, 9, 4, 5, respecting the 
signification of the word light.—xzxéro¢ here, as often elsewhere, de- 
signates a state of ignorance. 

(20) Παιδευτὴν. . . . νηπίων, an instructor of the ignorant, a 
teacher of little children. “Ageay means one who has -not mental 
skill or consideration? secondarily, an ignorant person.—Nyziav of 
course here means, children of such an age as that they may receive 
instruction. I have therefore rendered it little children, in prefer- 
ence to babes, which naturally designates those not sufficiently ma- 
ture for instruction. 

"EX ovra oe «ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, having the delineation of true knowledge 
in the Scriptures. Μόρφωσιν may be used in a bad or good sense. 
In a bad sense it occurs in 2 Tim. iil. 5, where the form (μόρφωσιν) 
of godliness is opposed to the power of it, ὃ, e., hypocritical pretences 
to piety are opposed to the real exercise of it. But the verb μορφόω 
is used in a good sense in Gal. iv. 19, ‘until Christ μορφωθῇ be 
formed in you. ‘The synonyme of μόρφωσις, viz., ὑποτύπωσις, is used 
in a good sense, 2 Tim. i. 13, ‘hold fast ὑποτύπωσιν of sound doctrine,’ 
ἄς. μόρφωσις means form, external appearance ; also, delineation, 
shetch, 7. e., imitated form. I understand it in the good sense, i. e., 
as meaning delineation in our verse, because the apostle is enumer- 
ating the supposed, or rather the acknowledged, advantages of the 
Jews. One of these was, that true knowledge (in distinction from 
the philosophy falsely so called of the Greeks) was in their posses- 
sion, or at least in their power. . 

Τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, of true knowledge; a Hendiadys in 
which the latter noun qualifies the former. The meaning of the 
whole is: ‘ Est tibi vera sapientia in lege adumbrata,’ 

(21) ὁ οὖν. . . « διδάσκεις; dost thou, then, who teachest others, 
not instruct thyself? This constitutes in reality, although not for- 


ROMANS II. 22. 117 


mally, the apodosis to the protasis which commences with εἰ δέ in 
verse 17. Argumentum ad hominem; for it is as much as to say : 
‘Thou pridest thyself in thy superior knowledge, and requirest all 
others to sit at thy feet in the humble capacity of learners; making 
these lofty professions, now, art thou thyself at the same time igno- - 
rant of what thou professest to know?’ The apostle implies by this, 
that many of the Jews were criminally ignorant. MReiche finds the 
apodosis in verse 25; Glockler, in verse 23; alii aliter. The οὖν in 
verse 21, as well as the nature of its contents, seems to me to point 
plainly to the apodosis. Dr. Knapp has omitted the sign of interro- 
gation after διδάσκεις, κλέπτεις, &.; plainly to the disadvantage of the 
sense... The interrogation is, indeed, not one of doubt or simple 
inquiry, but is designed for reproof and conviction. It is, moreover, 
better accordant with the apostle’s mode of reproof in this epistle, 
to suppose him here to be making interrogations (in the manner above 
stated), than to suppose him directly to make the charges, at first; 
as Dr. Knapp’s pointing would indicate. 

Ὃ κηρύσσων. . . . κχλέστεις ; thou who proclaimest that [men] must 
not steal, dost thou steal? Dost thou practise the very vice, 
against which thou dost so loudly protest? κηρύσσειν, publicly to 
proclaim ; in respect to a teacher of religion or morality it means 
to preach. 

(22) ‘O λέγων... . . μοιχεύεις ; thou who forbiddest to commit adul- 
tery, dost thou commit adultery? A crime very common among the 
Jews; for even the Talmud accuses some of the most celebrated 
Rabbies of this vice. ‘O λέγων μή, forbiddest, lit. who sayest: Not. 

‘O βδελυσσόμενος . . . . ἱεροσυλεῖς; dost thou who abhorrest idols, com- 
mit robbery in sacred things? Since the Babylonish captivity, the 
Jews have always expressed the greatest abhorrence of idolatry. 
But still, the real criminality of idolatry consists in taking from the 
only living and true God that ‘which belongs to him, and bestowing 
it upon something which is worthless and vain. Now the Jews, 
who were prone to keep back tithes and offerings (Mal. i. 8, 12, 
13, 14. mi. 10. Mark vii. 11), by so doing robbed God of that which 
was due to him, notwithstanding they professed a great abhorrence 
of idolatry which committed the like sin. I apprehend, however, 
that the word ἱεροσυλεῖς is here used in a somewhat wider extent than 
this interpretation simply considered would imply, 2. ¢., that it desig- 
nates every kind of act which denies to God his sovereign honours 
and claims. 


118 ROMANS II. 23, 24, 


The exegesis of this word which assigns to it a literal sense viz., 
that of committing sacrilege, i. e., of robbing the temples of idols and 
converting their riches to individual use (contrary to the precept in 
Deut. vil. 25, 26), wants an historical basis for its support. When 
and where were the Jews accustomed to act in this manner? Yet 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Le Clerc, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Fritsche, 
and others, have defended this interpretation. 

(23) ος ἐν. . . . ἀτιμάζεις; thou who gloriest in the law, by the 
transgression of the law dost thou dishonour God? For the con- 
struction of καυχᾶσαι ἐν νόμῳ, see on verse 17. As God was the author 
of the law, or supreme legislator, so the transgression of it was a dis- 
honouring of him, a contemning or setting light by his authority. 
For the form of καυχᾶσαι (second pers. sing. pres. Middle voice), see 
New Test. Gramm. ὃ Ixxi. 5, and note on verse 17 above; also comp. 
in Matt. v. 36. viii. 2. Mark i. 40. ix. 22. Luke xvi. 25. 1 Cor. iv. 7. 
Rom. xi. 18, the like forms. The ending -εσαν for the 2nd. pers. 
singular, is the ancient one, out of which the usual ending is made 
by dropping the «, and then contracting the diphthong that re- 
mains. 

(24) To γὰρ . . . . γέγραπται, for the name of God is blasphemed 
by you, or on your account, among the Gentiles; as it is written. 
Γάρ confirmantis.—-Ai ὑμᾶς may possibly mean by you, t. e., by youas 
authors or agents; like ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα, vivo Patre vite mee auc- 
tore, John vi. 57; or like ζήσεται δὶ ἐμέ, ibid., et sic alibi; see Bretschn. 
Lex. διά, ii. 1. But the usual and natural meaning of δὲ ὑμᾶς is on 
your account, i. ¢., you being the cause or ground of the blasphemy 
in question. ‘This seems to be the most probable meaning here. ‘The 
passage quoted seems to be Isaiah lii. 5; where, however, the Sept. 
has δὶ ὑμᾶς διωπαντὺς τὸ ὄνομνά, μου βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ξθνεσι, varying as to 
manner and some of the matter from the text quoted by the apostle. 
However, such variations are common in the New Testament text. 
The Hebrew runs thus: vA) pynrbp TON? 839, the sense of which 
is that the heathen blasphemed the name of Jehovah, because his 
people (by reason of their sins) were subjected to captivity. In the 
like manner Paul accuses the Jews of causing the name of Jehovah 
to be reproached among the Gentiles, because of the transgression 
against his laws which they committed. ‘The original passage is not 
a proper prediction, but a simple declaration of a fact then existing. 
Paul quotes it here, for the sake of declaring that the same thing 
was true in his day; 7. ¢., he expresses his own views and asserts facts, 


ἜΣ ΡΨ ie | ἊΝ 


c 


ROMANS I. 25. 119. 


in the language of an ancient prophet. The γάρ at the beginning of 
the verse shows that the design of the verse is, to illustrate and en- 
force the declaration contained in ἀτιμάζεις. 

Ἔν τοῖς ἔθνεσι, 18 a circumstance added in the Sept. and by the 
apostle. It is not expressed in the Hebrew, but it is evidently 
implied. The meaning of the whole is, that the heathen themselves 
are led to blaspheme the name of God by the flagrant vices of the 
Jews; which was a heavy charge, and allowing its truth, it served 
abundantly to illustrate and confirm the declaration, that the Jews 
brought dishonour upon God by their offences—dishonour even 
from others. Of course their sins must have been great and con- 
spicuous. 

(25 Περιτομὴ. . . πράσσῃς, circumcision indeed is profitable, if thou 
dost obey the law. Mz here belongs to the protasis, the apodosis to 
which commences with ἐὰν 62. The γάρ in this verse is a matter of 
difficulty. Many MSS. and Versions omit it. Still, it has sufficient 
support to claim a place in the text. Although γάρ always implies 
some preceding sentiment to which it refers, yet this is not always 
expressed, but not unfrequently left to the mind of the reader to sup- 
ply. In such a case we may sometimes render γάρ by indeed, to be 
sure, truly, (see Passow Lex. γάρ), which designate in some good 
measure the qualification of the sentence that γάρ designates. Here, 
as it seems to me, the sentiment in the writer’s mind before writing 
γάρ was: ‘Thou hast no reason for glorying in the law; for (γάρ) 
circumcision [the symbol or token of admission to the privileges of a 
Jew| will not avail thee in case thou transeressest the law, as in re- 
ality thou dost.’ In such a connection of thought, which is naturally 
deduced from verses 23, 24, the appropriateness of γάρ is sufficiently 
plain. But when the implied clause is omitted, as in the version, 
then we may translate, as I have done, circumcision INDEED is pro- 
fitable, &c.; which accords entirely with the principle laid down by 
Passow. Not that γάρ is an adverb of affirmation, truly, certainly, 
when considered in and by itself; but because the connection of 
thought is such, that in our language we come nearest to the whole 
sense of the passage by such a translation. In the case before us, 
verse 25 seq. are not a direct deduction from the preceding paragraph, 
but an illustration of a similar nature, designed to show that the Jew 
can claim no moral preference over the Gentile, on the mere ground 
of external privileges. As this is the main position of the apostle in 
this stage of his discussion, we might supply before γάρ in verse 25, 


120 ROMANS II. 26. 


the general thought, viz., ‘The Jew has no precedence in the matter 
of justification over the Gentile; for (γάρ) circumcision profits only 
when he does not transgress the law; and this never can be affirmed 
of the Jew.’ Bnt the manner in which the connection is made out 
above, connects γάρ with the more immediate context, and the raga- 
ξάσεως of verse 23, and παραξάτης of verse 25 show that the writer 
had such a connection in his mind. 

᾿Εὰν 02... . γέγονεν, but if thou becomest a transgressor of the law, 
thy circumcision becomes uncircumeision ; ὃ, 6.. if thou dost not obey 
the law, then the privileges to which thou art entitled as a Jew, will 
not save thee: thou wilt not be considered or treated as any better 
than an uncircumcised person, 7. ¢., a Gentile or heathen man. In 
a word, not external privileges or pre-eminence, in themselves con- 
sidered, but the use which is made of them, entitles any one to di- 
vine approbation or favour. 

How much the Jews attributed to circumcision, is strikingly illus- 
- trated in a passage of the Talmud (Shemoth Rabba, sect. 19. fol. 
118): “Said Rabbi Berachias, When heretical, apostate, and im- 
"pious Jews say: ‘ We cannot go down to hell because we are 
circumcised ;) what does the blessed God do? He sends his angel, 
et preputia eorum attrahit, ut, ipsi preputiati [uncircumcised] in 
infernum descendant.” 

(26) ᾽Εὰν οὖν. . . . φυλάσσῃ, tf, moreover, the uncircumcised keep the 
precepts of the law. Οὖν here, as often, serves merely for the external 
connection of vers. 25, 26, and not to point out a logical inference, 
deduction, &c., (which it frequently does). It might be rendered 
then or so. But verses 25, 26 seem to be simply parallel cases ; and 
if so, moreover, is amore appropriate rendering. ’ AxgoSveria, abstract 
for concrete, as exhibited in the translation.—Aima:myuara, precepts, 
DPR, 

Οὐχὶ 4... λογισθήσεται, shall not his uncireumeision be counted for 
circumcision? That is, shall not he, in a heathen state, be ac- 
cepted as readily as a Jew who obeys in a state of circumcision? 
In other words: Neither circumcision, nor the want of it, deter- 
mines our deserts in the view of our Maker and Judge; but a spirit 
of filial obedience. “If ye love me, ye will keep my command- 
ments.” —Eis περιτομήν is after the Hebrew analogy, which puts ? 
before a noun designating that into which another thing has been 
changed, or which it has become, 6. g., Dwand on“, be men, 1 Sam. 
iv. 9; ‘Jehovah made the rib ΠΡ, a woman, Gen. ii. 22, The 


ROMANS It. 27. 121 


parallel between ἀκροβυστία γέγονεν in ver. 25, and εἰς περιτομὴν λογισθή- 
σεται ver. 26, is very obvious. 

The possibility that a heathen might keep the law, is here most 
plainly admitted; but this givesno ground for saying that such a 
case has ever actually existed. Still, the principle enforced is the 
same; and the assumption of such a case gives great force to the 
apostle’s reasoning. } 

(27) Kol κρινεῖ. . .. τελοῦσα, yea, he who keeps the law in his na-- 

_tural uncircumcised state, shall condemn. καί affirmantis, qualify- 
ing κρινεῖ ᾿ Ἔκ φύσεως between the article and its following noun, takes 
of course the place of an adjective. Φύσις plainly means here what 
we call a state of nature, in distinction from a state in which a reve- 
lation is enjoyed. The apostle states here and in the preceding verse, 
as before remarked, a principle for illustration merely; he does not 
aver, that what he describes is matter of historical fact; for this would 
contradict the whole tenor and object of his reasoning in general, 
which is to show that all men without exception have sinned, and 
therefore that all without exception must be saved by grace through 
faith in Christ, and can be saved only in this way. The efforts to 
prove from such passages as the present that there have been hea- 
then who kept the whole law of God, are surely fruitless. The 
main argument of the apostle himself falls to the ground, if this be 
onceadmitted. It seems quite plain, that the whole is merely a sup- 
posed case—supposed for the sake of illustrating a principle; and in 
the process of argumentation, nothing is more common than this. 

Σὲ τὸν. . . . νόμου [condemn] thee who art a transgressor of the 
law, although enlightened by the Scriptures anda partaker of cir- 
cumeision. Διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς here coming between the arti- 
cle τόν and its corresponding noun παραβάτην, evidently perform the 
office of adjectives qualifying παραβάτην. The διά here is διά condi- 
tionis vel statis, if 1 may so speak. διά is not unfrequently placed 
before nouns which designate state or condition; e. g., Rom. iv. 11, 
those who believe δὲ ἀκροβυστίας, in an uncircumcised state; 2 Cor. ii. 
4, I have written this διὰ πολλῶν δακρύων, in a state of much weeping ; 
2 Cor. v. 10, that every one may receive τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος, [accord- 
ing to] the things done in a bodily state; Heb. ix. 12. 2 Pet. i. 3. 
1 John v.6; see Bretschn. Lex. διά 1. 2. c. The ideaintended to be 
conveyed by the apostle, is quite plain; viz. ‘If a Gentile should do 
what the law requires, would not this show that you are worthy of 
condemnation who transgress the law, although you enjoy the light 


122 | ROMANS 11. 28, 29. 


of revelation and the privileges which a state of circumcision con- 
fers 7 7 

(28) οὐ γὰρ .. .. ἐστιν, for he is not a Jew who is one externally; 
ἢ. 6.7 who is descended from Abraham, is circumcised, and enjoys the 
privileges of a written revelation, is not a Jew in the important and 
spiritual sense of the word; he is merely an external (not an inter- 
nal) Jew. The grammatical construction completed without any 
ellipsis, would be, ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ [᾿Ιουδαζὸς], οὐκ ᾿Ιουδαῦός ἐστιν. 

Οὐδὲ ἡ ἐν. .« «. περιτομή, noris that which is external, [merely] in 
the flesh circumcision ; i. ¢., that is not circumcision in its high and 
true sense, which is merely external, which pertains merely to the 
flesh. The sentence filled out would read thus: οὐδὲ ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ 
[περιτομὴ], ἐν σαρκὶ [περιτομὴ], περιτομή [ ἐστι], 2. €., true περιτομή. 

(29) ᾿Αλλ᾽ 6... . "Ioudaios, but he who is a Jew in the hidden part ; 
i. 6.57 who is spiritually or mternally a Jew, such an one only de- 
serves the appellation "Iovdais. The clause filled out would stand 
thus: ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ "Iovdaiog [[Ιουδαΐς ἐστιν] : which latter clause 
the mind of the writer supplied from the first part of ver. 28. 

Kal περιτομὴ .. . . γράμματι, and the circumeision of the heart, a 
spiritual not a literal one, [is the true circumcision.] There is the 
same ellipsis here, as in the preceding clause, περιτομή ἐστιν being un- 
derstood after οὐ γράμματι. The words σνεύματι οὐ γράμματι, icume- 
nius, Grotius, and most interpreters construe as referring to the Holy 
Spirit and to the precepts of the law ; 7. ¢., cireumcision of the heart 
wrought by the operation of the Holy Spirit, not by following merely 
the literal precepts of the law. ‘The sense is good, and the doctrine 
true; but I apprehend that the writer here uses πνεύματι and γράμματι 
merely as adjectives or adverbs to characterize more graphically the 
περιτομὴ καρδίας Which he had just mentioned. 

Οὗ ὁ trams... « Θεοῦ whose praise is not of men, but of God; 
that is, the praise of the Jew, who is truly a Jew after the hidden or 
internal man, is not of men but of God, “ Man looketh on the out- 
ward appearance, but God looketh on the heart.” The Jews con- 
sidered it as a great privilege and a ground of high pre-eminence 
over others, that they were descended from Abraham, were circum- 
cised and were entrusted with the Scriptures. ‘ All this,’ says the 
apostle, ‘does not entitle them in theleast degree tothe praise of God. 
The state of the heart in the internal man, is what he considers ; and 
this alone is of any real moral value in his sight.’ ‘ You,’ says he, 
‘who are nothing more than external Jews, are not Jews in the high 


ave Rpm ὥραν 


Pe ἀρ ec 


ROMANS Ii. 1. 123 


and noble sense which will make you to be heirs of the grace of life 
or of the promises of God. You have, because of your external 
privileges, no pre-eminence over the heathen on the score of moral 
accountability. All men, in regard to such an accountability, stand 
on a level, for each will be judged according to the law under which 
he acted; the Gentiles by the law of nature, the Jews by revelation, 


CHAP. III. 1—20. 


NOTHING was more natural than for the Jew, who had entertained the most elevated notions 
of the advantages to which he was entitled from his external privileges, to feel strong objections 
to such a representation of the apostle as reduced Jews and Gentiles to a level in a*moral 
respect. It was to be expected that the Jew would indignantly ask (and so the ayostle re- 
presents him as asking): ‘Of what advantage then can Judaism be? That is, provided the 
case is as you represent it to be,’ ver. 1. To this the apostle replies in ver. 2, that the benefit 
of more light was conferred by such a privilege. But the Jew, not satisfied with a claim to pre- 
eminence of this kind, further inquires, how the apostle’s views could be reconciled with God’s 
fidelity to the promises which he had made to the Jews, ver. 3. The apostle replies, that this 
fidelity must not for a moment be called in question, but that we must adopt the sentiment of 
Dayid (Ps. li. 4) in regard to this, ver. 4. . The Jew still dissatisfied, urges further questions, by 
which he intends to hedge up the apostle’s way: ‘ If the sins of the Jewish nation serve to render 
more conspicuous the justice of God, is it not unjust that he should punish us?’ ver.5. Not at 
all, replies the apostle; for on the same ground you might object to the truth, that God will 
judge the world, and of course punish the wicked ; for his justice will be displayed in such a way 
as to redound to his glory, ver. 6. The Jew, not yet satisfied, asks: ‘ If God’s faithfulness become 
more conspicuous by my unfaithfulness, why should I be condemned”? ver. 7. To which the 
apostle replies that he might just as well say: ‘Let us do evil that good may come;’ which in 
fact some did charge him with saying, although they deserved condemnation for so doing, inas- 
much as the charge was false. 

The Jew again asks, with evident disappointment: ‘How then have we Jews any pre-emi- 
nence over the Gentiles?” To which the apostle replies: You have none, in respect to the matter 
that Iam discussing. <All are sinners. Your own Scriptures do abundantly bear testimony that 
your nation are transgressors, as well as the heathen. Prophets of different ages have borne 
testimony which conveys charges of the most aggravated nature, vers. 10—18. Now as what is 
thus said in the Scriptures was plainly said concerning the Jews, it follows, that your own sacred 
books bear testimony to the same doctrine which I affirm to be true. Consequently the whole 
world, Jews and Gentiles, are guilty before God, ver. 19; for by works of law none can be justi- 
fied, inasmuch as the law condemus all transgressors, and sets forth their criminality instead of 
declaring their justification. 


(1) Ὑἱ οὖν .. .. ᾿Ιουδαΐου; what advantage then hath the Jew? 
or, what pre-eminence hath the Jew?—Oiv then, is very often joined 
with τί in interrogatives. Both words united signify as much as to 
say: ‘ Allowing what you affirm, then how can this or that take place 


124 ROMANS III. 2 


or how can it be so or so ?’—MTegicoty signifies that which exceeds or 
abounds, precedence, prestantia. Sentiment: “If what you say is 
true, then how is the Jew in any better condition than the Gentile, 
or what pre-eminence has he over him” 

Ἢ τίς. « . . περιτομῆς, or what is the advantage or profit of cir- 
cumeision? ‘That is, if the Jew is subject to the same condemning - 
sentence as the Gentile, of what use is the rite of circumcision, and 
the relation in which it places him to the people of God? 

(2) πολὺ. . . - τρόπον, much [advantage] in many respects, or in 
every respect. Rendered in this latter way, πάντα would refer of 
course to something in the preceding context, and every respect 
would mean, every one already touched upon, 6. g., in ii. 17—23. 
Literally interpreted, πάντα must mean in all respects. But the real 
sense of the phrase here is better given by the translation, in various 
or many respects, in a variety of ways. 

Πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ . .. - Θεοῦ, the principal one however is, that they 
were entrusted with the oracles of God. Beza renders πρῶτον, prima- 
rium illud est quod. But Tholuck takes the μέν which follows πρῶτον͵ 
to be the μέν of a protasis, to which indeed no apodosis succeeds. He 
says, that ‘it agrees well with the fire of Paul’s mind, to regard him 
as having forgotten what was to follow, or to have considered the 
first thing here suggested as adequate to his purpose, without sug- 
gesting any more.’ But I must at least feel greater necessity than 
I see here, before I can adopt sucha solution. πρῶτον clearly means, 
in some cases, imprimis, maxime omnium, particularly, specially, 
most of all; 6. g., Matt. vi, 33. Luke xi. 1. 2 Pet. i. 20. iii. ὃ. 
1 Tim. ii. 1. In these cases, it does not signify first in such a sense 
as implies a second in order, but first as the most eminent or most 
important thing in the writer’s mind or intention ; like the Hebrew 
MWA, ὁ. g., ὉΝ NWN, the most distinguished of nations, Num. 
xxiv. 20. Amos. vi. 6.—Tholuck further suggests, that μέν renders it 
probable that a protasis is here intended, although he does not think , 
this decisive. And truly it is not decisive ; for μέν is not unfrequently 
used without any δέ following, both in the classical writers and in the 
books of the New Testament; 6. g., 2 Cor. xii. 12. 1 Thess. ii. 18. 
Rom. vii. 12. xi. 13. x. 1, where “ explicationi inservit ;” and so μὲν 
γάρ in Acts xxviii. 22. 2 Cor. ix. 1. xi. 4. Heb. vi. 16. vii. 18; μὲν 
οὖν, Acts xxvi. 9. 1 Cor. vi. 4, 7, et alibi. Mv γάρ, in cases such as 
those just cited, seems evidently designed to answer the place of the 
Latin eqguidem, quidem, i. e., to give intensity to a declaration ; and 


: 
J 
J 
δ΄, 
’ 
4 
; 


ROMANS ΠῚ. 2. 125 


μόν may in such cases be called μέν intensivum, or uév concessivum, 
viz. implying that what isasserted, is supposed to be conceded; orat 
least that the speaker thinks it plainly ought to be conceded. It is 
indeed true, that μέν may be said always to imply that another and 
different or opposite sentence or declaration must follow, although 
scarcely any usage is more frequent than the omission of this declar- 
ation in cases where it can be easily and naturally supplied by the 
reader. In the case before us the implication is, that to Jews were | 
committed the divine oracles, and not to other nations: 7. 6.5 [οἱ Iovd«ior | 
μὲν γὰρ ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ, [ τὰ ἄλλα ξθνη δὲ οὐκ ἐπιστεύθησαν x. τ. 
λ. See examples of the like nature, confirming and illustrating this 
principle, in Passow’s excellent lexicon, 8. v. μέν, 2. g. In this way, 
since the implied opposition gives emphasis to what is expressed, we 
come to the conclusion that μέν is to be taken in an emphatic sense, 
where it stands thus alone. 

As to the γάρ, it has indeed of itself no necessary connection with 
or influence upon the μέν ; and if the reader pleases, he may consider 
it as γάρ illustrantis, i. e., γάρ standing before a clause designed to 
illustrate or confirm what precedes; which is the case with the clause 
in which γάρ here stands | 

In the case before us μὲν γάρ implies, that the advantage [πρῶτον] of 
the Jew, it must be conceded, lay specially in his having the gift of 
a revelation filled with precious promises bestowed upon him. We 
may translate (ad sensum) thus: ‘ A peculiaradvantage, as you must 
concede, is, that, &e.’; or, ‘ The most important advantage is, &e.’; 
both having substantially the same sense. 

"Ors . . . « Θεοῦ isnot to be construed by taking λόγια as a Nomi- 
native, for it is the Accusative after ἐπιστεύθησαν. It is a principle of 
the Greek language, that where a verb in its active voice governs 
the Accusative of a thing and the Dative of a person, the Accusa- 
tive is retained after a verb of the passive voice. Such is the case 
with σιστεύω" see Luke xvi. 11. John 11. 24; compare for the passive 
voice, 1 Cor. ix. 17. Gal. ii. 7. 1 Thess. ii. 4. 1 Tim. i. 11. Tit. i. 3. 
So frequently in the classics; see Wahl’s Lex. in verb., also N. Test. 
Gramm. ὃ 108. 6. 

Aéyia, oracles, like the 127 of the Hebrews, means any kind of 
divine response or communication, effatum divinum. Here, as verse 
3 shows, the λόγια has special reference to those oracles which con- 
tain promises respecting the Messiah, the Jewish nation, &c. 

In regard to the general sentiment of the verse, it isas much as to 


120 ROMANS It. 3. 


say, that more light, and better spiritual advantages were bestowed 
upon the Jews than upon the Gentiles.. Access to the Scriptures 
would give more light; the promises offered encouragement to a life 
of piety; and in consequence of the state in which revelation placed 
the Jews, to them were made the first offers of the gospel. It should 
be remarked here, that the apostle contents himself for the present 
with naming merely one ground of advantage which the Jew had. 
The pressure of objections seems to have occasioned his omission of 
other grounds of precedence. The reader will find others in chap. 
ix. 1. seq. 

(3) Ti γάρ; what then? The usual mode of asking questions, 
γάρ being very often joined with an interrogation: see Passow on 
γάρ. It seems to be γάρ intensivum, in most of such cases ; as Acts 
xvi. 37, οὐ γάρ, not at all, 2 Tim. ii. 7. Job vi. 8. Phil. 1. 18. In 
the present case, γάρ seems tohave a reference to what had been said 
in the preceding verse. The course of thought appears to be thus: 
‘What then shall we say to this, viz., to that which I am now about 
to suggest? That is; ‘Allowing what you have said to be true, 
then if some of the Jews were unfaithful, as you intimate, would not 
this detract from the veracity of the divine promises ?” 

Ei ἠπίστησαν . . .«. καταργήσει; if some were unfaithful, will their 
unfaithfulness render void the faithfulness of God? That is, if 
some of the Jews have been unfaithful to the covenant, and are in 
no better condition than the heathen, how will this consist with the 
fidelity of God in respect to his promise made to the Jewish nation? 
—Hriornow is from ἀπιστέω, which comes from dmorog unfaithful, - 
(mores often means faithful). ᾿Απιστέω therefore means, not to be 
πιστός, l. 4.) to be unfaithful, treacherous, &c. viz. ἴῃ respect to 
their covenant with God. The meaning is: ‘lf the Jews practi- 
cally disregard, ἡ, e., would not dutifully receive and obey, divine 
revelation, &¢c.’—Tlicrw, fidelity, faithfulness in keeping promises ; 
compare Matt. xxiii. 23. 2 Tim. ii. 13, and perhaps Gal. v. 22. 
1 Tim. i. 4,19. Rev. ii. 19. xiii. 10, The μή before ἀπιστία αὐτῶν 
is interrogative and employed here (as usual) in a question to which 
a negative answer is of course expected; see New Testament Gramm. 
§ 153, 4. 

Μὴ γένοιτο, hoc minime eveniat! Let not this be supposed ; or not 
at all, by no means! Optative of yivouos joined with a negative. 
This should be included in verse 4. The Hebrew non corre- 
sponds to this. 


ROMANS ITI. 4. 127 


(4) Γινέσθω d: . . . . ψεύστης, but let God be [accounted] true, and 
every man false. ᾿Αληθής means veracious, faithful to his word or 
promise.—¥everns is the opposite of ἀληθής. The meaning is: Let 
God be regarded as faithful although all men should thereby be 
deemed guilty of unfaithfulness; 7. ¢., much more becoming and 
proper is it, that men should impute unfaithfulness to themselves 
than to God. The second 6: I have rendered and here, although it 
appears to be.adversative. The sentiment is not injured by this © 
version, and the repetition of but is avoided. 

To confirm the pious sentiment which he had just uttered, the 
apostle appeals to an expression of David (Ps. li. 7), where, in signi- 
fying his penitence in view of his past transgressions, he says-(Sept. 
Ps. 1. 4): “ Against thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in 
thy sight, dru dv . . . . κρίνεσθαί σε, 80 that thou mayest be justified 
when thou speakest (or in thy words 1.13.3} and be clear when 
thou art judged.” The Psalmist means to say, that as he had 
sinned in a grievous manner against God, so God is to be justified 
and acquitted altogether, when he reproves him for his sin and pro- 
nounces against it the sentence of condemnation. The like use would 
Paul make of the sentiment contained in these words. ‘ Let us not,’ 
says he, ‘attempt to justify ourselves when we are accused of being 
unfaithful ; but let us justify God in all respects, when he condemns 
our conduct and vindicates his own.’ 

"Ey τοῖς λόγοις σου means, when thou utterest reproof or condemna- 
tion; t.@, the connection in which it stands gives it of necessity 
such a turn.—Nixjons, mightest overcome, Heb. "211 mightest be 
pure, t. e., mightest be adjudged to be pure, held to be guiltless or 
faultless. So in Rabb. Hebrew, and in the Gemara 71 means vin- 
cere in causa. He who in a judicial contest was adjudged to be 
pure or guiltless, of course was the victor; and on this account the 
Septuagint νικήσῃς (adopted by the apostle) is a translation of the 
Hebrew ad sensum, although not ad verbum. 

Ἔν τῷ κρίνεσθαί oz, Flatt, Reiche, and others construe as being in 
the passive voice. The Hebrew runs thus: 25¥a ... . 572273, 
when thou speakest . . . . when thou judgest, or in the judgment of 
thee, i. e., when thou art judged. The sense here seems plainly to 
require us to understand the meaning as passive; for the apostle 
designs to say, that when the doings of God are judged of by his 
creatures, he must be acquitted. So in the present case, he must 
be acquitted of all unfaithfulness. The Psalmist (Ps. li. 7) employs 


198 ROMANS Ill. ὅ, 


the verb 7317 in its active sense, meaning to say, that when God 
condemns he will act justly. ‘The use which the apostle makes of 
the sentiment, is of the same nature; for he means to say: ‘In pro- 
nouncing sentence or condemnation upon men, thou art to be justi- 
fied, and if thou art called in question for this, thou wilt prove to 
be victor, or come off clear in the contest.’ 

(5) Eid: . . . . συνίστησι, but if our unrighteousness commend the 
righteousness of God. Az “addit vim interrogationi, et usurpatur 
presertim interrogatione repetita,” Bretschn. Lex. 6: ὃ. 6. The sense 
of δέ is plainly adversative here.—’ Αδικία is here the generic appella- 
tion of sin, for which a specific name (ἀπιστία) was employed in ver. 
3,and ψεῦσμα isused inver. 7. In like manner, the δικαιοσύνη in ver. 
5, which is a generic appellation, is expressed by a specific one (πίστι) 
in ver. 3, and by ἀλήθεια in ver. 7. The idea is substantially the 
same, which is designated by these respectively corresponding appel- 
lations. Fidelity, uprightness, integrity, are designated by πίστιν, δικαιο- 
σύνην, and ἀλήθεια: while ἀπιστία, ἀδικία, and Ψεύσματι, designate unfaith- 
fulness, want of uprightness, and false dealing. All of these terms 
have more or less reference to the ΠῚ, covenant, or compact (so to 
speak), which existed between God and his ancient people. But in 
the present verse, they are to be taken in a sense somewhat more 
enlarged. 

Δικαιοσύνην Θεοῦ does not here mean (as it does m most cases where 
it is used in this epistle), the justification which is of God ; it desig- 
nates the divine justice, as the context clearly shows. For here 
the apostle (or the objector) is speaking of that attribute of God, 
which is concerned with the judging or punishing of offenders. Of 
course, the retributive justice of God must be understood by δικαιο- 
σύνην Θεοῦ. 

Συνίστησι, sets off to advantage, shows forth, renders conspicuous. 
—Ti ἐροῦμεν ; what shall we say? ‘That is, how can we persevere in 
maintaining that the unbelieving part of the Jewish nation will be 
cast off, so long as even their very unbelief’ will be instrumental in 
setting off to more advantage, or in rendering more conspicuous, the 
retributive justice of God, and so of causing the more glory to his 
name? The equivalent of τί ἐροῦμεν, is common in the Rabbinic 
writings, where it runs thus: We SIS ND, quid est dicendum? 
This is usually expressed by the abbreviation OND, 

Μὴ ἄδικος . . « « ὀργήν; is God unjust, who inflicts punishment? If 


ὙΦ ΨΥ ee ne ee ey ee 


c 


ROMANS Ill. 5. 129 


the interrogation were here made by μὴ οὗ, 1s not, ete. the solution of . 
the sentence would be easy. But μή corresponds to the Latin num- 
ne, and asks a question to which @ negative answer is usually ex- 
pected as a matter of course. The Attics employed it, however, 
with somewhat greater liberty, and in cases where a negative answer 
did not of course follow. On the contrary, οὐ is used as an interro- 
gation, where an affirmative answer is of course expected. For an 
example of both cases: Μὴ δοχεῦ σοι τοῦτο εἶναι εὔηθες ; Does this seem to 
you foolish? Ans. No. Οὐ καὶ καλόν ἐστι τὸ ἀγαθόν; Is not a good 
thing something excellent? Ans. Yes. We cannot translate, there- 
fore, as Turretin and many others have done: Nonne injustus Deus, 
dum infert iram? 1. ¢., is not God unjust, etc.? This would indeed 
make the sentiment more easy and intelligible, when viewed as com- 
ing from the objector; for that itis to be attributed to him appears 
from the sequel, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω. After all, however, nearly the 
same sentiment comes out of the passage in another way. ‘The ob- 
jector asks: Ti ἐροῦμεν; μὴ ἄδικος x. τ. A. ; Thatis; ‘ Can it be now that 
God deals unjustly in the infliction of punishment [as your posi- 
tions would seem to indicate]?’? The answer is in the negative of 
course: μὴ γένοιτο. The objector means by the question which he puts, 
the same thing as to say; ‘I cannot believe your representation, for 
it would make God unjust.’ 

The immediate occasion for such a question on the part of the 
cbjector, seems to be furnished, of course, by the sentiment of the 
preceding verse. God, says the apostle, is to be justified in his con- 
demning: yea, he is altogether to be vindicated in it, even if all men 
are by him found guilty of unfaithful and treacherous dealing. ‘ But,’ 
replies the objector, ‘on your ground we may go on and say, that 
glory redounds to God because of such dealing on the part of men ; 
for this gives opportunity for God to display his justice to greater 
advantage than it could otherwise have been displayed. Why not, 
now, carry these considerations forward, and come to the result to 
which they would naturally lead? Why not conclude, that God is 
unjust when he inflicts punishment ? For this would seem to be a 
necessary consequence, if it be true that his justice is displayed to 
the greatest advantage by reasun of the wickedness of men, and he 
thus gets to himself the more honour and glory. 

Tholuck attributes μὴ ὁ Θεὸς κ. rv. 2. to the apostle himself, as an 
answer to the preceding question. But the κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω and the 
μὴ γένοιτο which follow, seem to me clearly to decide against this. 

I 


190 ROMANS III. 6. 


Κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω, I speak after the manner of men; 7. ¢., 1 speak 
as men are often accustomed to do. ‘The expression itself is general ; 
but the class of men whom the writer has in his mind here, are 
plainly the objectors to his doctrine. The expression κατὰ ἄνθρωπον 
λέγω may mean: J speak more humana, t. 6.5) in such a manner as is 
intelligible to men, in such language as men may comprehend; so 
ἀνθρώπινον λέγω, in Rom. vi. 19; and κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω, in Gal, iii. 15. 
In the sense /irst attributed to the phrase, the Greek and Latin wri- 
ters often use the like expression; 6. g., Aristoph. Rane, ver. 1090, 
ὃν χρῆ φράζειν ἀνθρωπεῶς, which one must describe in a way that is usual 
among men; Athen. Deipnos. Tom. IIT. Lib. LX. 29, ἀνθρωπινῶς λαλεῖ»; 
to speak like other folks. So Cicero: hominum more dicere, de Diy. 
11. 04. In like manner the Rabbins, when they wish to express 
what is commonly understood or affirmed by men in general, say : 
WIN WONT 193, as men usually affirm, or say. 

(6) Μὴ γένοιτο, by no means. ‘This is the negative answer, given 
by the apostle to the question: Μὴ ἄδικος x τ. A. 

᾿Επεὶ tH... . κόσμον ; otherwise, how shall God judge the world? 
i. é., if it is not to be denied that God is unjust, or if we must con- 
cede that he is unjust, then how shall we admit the doctrine of a 
future or general judgment ?— Ἐπεί, otherwise; comp. Rom. xi. 6, 22. 
1 Cor. v. 10. vii. 14. xiv. 16. xv. 29. Heb. x. 2, et alibi. The ques- 
tion, ‘ How shall God judge the world? is founded on the conces- 
sions or established opinion of the Jews respecting a judgment-day, 
which were well known to the apostle. The expression implies as 
much as to say: ‘ You Jews concede that there will be a time of 
judgment, when God will punish the wicked and reward the righteous. 
But how can this be, if your objections have any force? The retri- 
butive justice of God will be rendered conspicuous, when the wicked 
shall be condemned and punished, and God will be glorified thereby, 
just as in the present case ; if this then be areason why God should 
not punish, it is a reason why there should be no judgment; and in 
order to be consistent, you must deny this also.’ 

In this way we see, that the argument of the apostle is in a man- 
ner ad hominem, being founded on the concessions and established 
opinion of the Jews; which, however, in this instance, was in itself 
a well-founded and correct opinion. 

Venema, however, with Ernesti, Limborch, Koppe, Cramer, Stolz, 
Reiche, and others, contend that κόσμος here means only the heathen; 
and Reiche has endeavoured, at great length, to establish this inter- 


tT 


: 
ἥ 
᾿ 
4 
᾿ 
] 
| 
r 
Y 
7 
{ 


ROMANS III, 7, 8. 131 


pretation. But I do not see any thing to be gained from it. The 
Jews admitted a general judgment as well as a judgment of the hea- 
then. Why then could not Paul argue from this as well as from the 
other ὃ The nerve of the argument is the same in both cases; and . 
this is, that ‘ because God brings good out of evil, he is not therefore 
bound to remit the punishment of the evil, which must be inflicted — 
at the day of judgment.’ 

(7) Ei γὰρ. . .. αὐτοῦ, still, if the truth of God has abounded the 
more unto his glory, on account of my false dealing. ‘Tholuck un- 
derstands these to be the words of the apostle. ‘To me they appear 
very plainly to be the words which he attributes to the objector. 
The γάρ at the beginning of the verse refers to an implied thought 
in the mind of the objector, viz., ‘ My objection is still valid; for (γάρ) 
if the truth, &c.’ As to ἀλήθεια and Ψψεύσματι, see on verse 0. ᾿Αλήθεια 
here means, God’s faithful dealings with his people, both in his 
threats and promises; Ψεύσματι means their unfaithfulness as to his 
covenant, their false and treacherous dealings in respect to their vows 
and obligations. Sentiment: ‘Ifthe veracity and faithfulness of God 
are rendered more conspicuous, and this unto his own glory, by the 
false and deceitful conduct of his covenant people, why, &c.’ Reiche 
insists here, that ἀλήθεια must refer to true religion in opposition to 
idolatry (ψεῦσμα) ; and so he makes out the verse to apply to the hea- 
then. Why then does he not refer ἀληθής and ψεύστης, in verse 4, to 
the heathen? Js it not evident that the nouns here merely corre- 
spond to the adjectives there? Why should the sense then oblige 
us to make a different reference of the meaning ? 

The nice observer of idiom will note, that the conditional sentence 
here, beginning with εἰ has an Aor. Indic. (ἐπερίσσευσε) in it, and 


. therefore indicates that the speaker here states a case which he did 


not believe could take place, ὁ, ¢., it could not take place in the man- 
ner and measure that the language might seem to import. It is 
conditionality not founded on probability, but stated for the sake of 
objection. See New Test. Gramm. ὃ 129. 3. d. — 

Ti ἔτι ᾿ς «ον χρίνομαι ; then why am I still condemned as a sinner ? 
That is, why should I suffer punishment on account of that very thing | 
which has contributed to the glory of God, inasmuch as it has oc- 
casioned the greater display of his perfections ? 

(8) Καὶ wi... . ἀγαθά ; shall we then [say], (as it is slanderously 
reported, and as some affirm that. we do say): Let us do evil that 
good may come? As μή is simply interrogative here, it cannot be 


132 ROMANS III. 9. 


rendered (as in our English version), not. Μή is connected with 
ἐροῦμεν OY λέγωμεν understood, as appears from the following clause 
with ὅτι ; or it may be connected simply with ποιήσωμεν. The answer 
of the apostle is by a question which strongly implies disapproba- 
tion of the sentiment in the preceding clause: ‘ Shall we then speak 
out and say: Let us do evil that good may come? as some do actu- 
ally, although slanderously, accuse us of saying.’ “Oz, when the 
verse is thus explained, may be regarded as a particle marking cited 
words (for so it is often used in all parts of the New Testament), 
viz., the words σοιήσωμεν x. τ. Δ. Or the whole may be construed thus : 
Shall we say, then, that we may do evil, &c. Kai is here a continua- 
tive of the apostle’s reply to the objector. 

Βλασφημούμεϑα, literally, we are slanderously reported, viz., it is slan- 
derously reported that we say, etc. In the paragraph above, I have 
rendered ad sensum rather than ad literam. 

The occasion given for the enemies of the gospel thus to slander 
Paul and others, was, that he preached the doctrine, that God would 
be glorified by the display of his justice in the condemnation of sin- 
ners, and that where sin abounded grace did much more abound ; 
doctrines easily abused by a carnal mind, but which contain truths 
awful and delightful. Would God that abuse of them might have 
never extended beyond the apostolic age! 

“Oy τὸ κρῆμα ἔνδικόν ἐστι, whose condemnation is just. Ile means, that 
the condemnation of those who falsely attributed such doctrines to 
the apostles and other preachers, was just; in other words, that their 
offence was of such a nature as to deserve punishment. 

(9) Τῇ οὖν; What then? ‘The question is by the objector; and 
οὖν, in such a connection, implies as much as to say: ‘ What now 
can be gathered from all this? 

Προεχόμεθα; Have we [Jews] any preference? That is, allowing 
all that you have said to be true, what preference now can we assign 
to the Jews? Have they any ground at all for a claim of superiority ? 
ΤΙροεχόμεθα may be construed as in the Passive, . 6.57 are we preferred? 
—lTlave we any precedence? So in Plut. de Stoic. τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς πᾶσι 
προσήκει, κατ᾽ οὐδὲν προεχομένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ Διός, i. é., this is necessary for the 
good, who are not indulged at all with a preference by Jupiter. 

Οὐ πάντως" none at all; i. e., none as it respects the great point in 
debate, viz., whether all men are sinners before God, and under the 
condemning sentence of his law. So the latter part of the verse 
leads us to explain the sentiment; and a comparison with vers. 1, 2, 


" 


ROMANS ΠῚ. 10. 133 


above, and ix. 1—5, will oblige us thus to interpret it; for superi- 
ority of another kind, «. ¢., in external advantages, is there directly 
asserted of the Jews by the apostle himself: 

Προητεασάμεθα . . . . εἶναι, for we have already made the charge 
against both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. I cannot 
find, in the best lexicons, any evidence that σροαυτάομαι means di- 
rectly to prove. Αἰτία 18 accusation, cause, ground, reason; hence the 
verb αἱτιάομαι means to accuse, to show cause, &c.; generally in a Lad 
sense, implying the preferring or supporting of a charge against any 
one. According to this, the apostle means to say, that having 
already advanced or supported the charge against Jews and Gen- 
tiles of. being sinners without exception, and of standing in need of 
the mercy proffered by the gospel, of course he cannot now concede, 
that the Jews have any exemption from this charge, or any ground 
of preference to the Gentiles, so far as the matter of justification is 
concerned. πΠρομτιασάμεθα, however, may here mean, and probably 
it does mean, we have shown reason why, or we have supported the 
charge that, &c. 

‘ry’ ἁμαρτίαν means, under the power, or control of sin, subject to 
its dominion. 

(10) Kadas γεγρασται x. τ. % . What is the object of this appeal ? 
Evidently it is to illustrate and confirm the point now in debate. 
And what then is this point? Why plainly, that the Jews have no 
preference over the Gentiles, so far as their guilt and inability to 
justify themselves are concerned. The apostle had just said (in 
answer to the question put by a Jew, Have we any pre-eminence ?) 
Οὐ πάντως. Why not? Because he had already shown reason why 
the Jews, as well as the Gentiles, are involved in the charge of uni- 
versal guilt; therefore, both were in the same condition, with respect 
to their need of a Saviour. What then is the object of further proof 
or illustration here? Surely it must be the point in question, viz., 
whether in fact the Jews, equally with the Gentiles, lie under ‘the 
imputation of guilt before God. The quotations then, have special 
reference to the Jews. So Chrysostom, Calvin, Grotius, Tholuck, 
Flatt, and others. So verse 19 obliges us to construe the quota- 
tions in question. 

The quotations are taken from various parts of the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures, and mostly in the words of the Septuagint. The general 
strain and object of them is to show, that in ancient times charges 
of guilt were made against the Jews, not less aggravated than those 


184 ROMANS 11]. 10, 


now made by the apostle. The Jew could make no satisfactory 
reply to this, so long as he allowed the full weight and authority of 
the Old Testament. The apostle then, by adducing such charges 
from the Jewish Scripture, says in effect: ‘You cannot accuse me 
of making strange and novel charges against you. Your own Scrip- 
tures are filled with charges of the like nature.’ 

That such is the general object of the quotations which follow, 
there seems to be no good reason to doubt. Certainly some of the 
passages adduced have not an unlimited signification, applicable to 
men of all times and all nations; at least they have not such a 
meaning in the Old Testament, in the connection in which they 
stand. Nothing can be more certain than that the writers of most 
of them are not treating of the question, whether all men are de- 
praved; but are advancing charges against the unbelieving and 
impious part of the Jewish nation. Now what characterized unbe- 
lieving Jews of old, may still be affirmed of them, 7. e., of all who 
reject a Saviour. This must proceed from wickedness of heart ; and 
therefore the apostle may apply to all who are guilty of it, those 
descriptions of wicked Jews which the Old Testament exhibits. 


Such seems to be the plain and obvious method of interpreting 


the quotations before us. I am well aware that they have not un- 
frequently been understood and explained in a different way, viz., 
as having a direct bearing on the universal depravity of the human 
race. The context both in verses 9 and 10 shows, however, that 
such an asspmption is not well-grounded, and that the citations have 
respect to the apostle’s argument in regard to the moral condition 
of all unbelieving Jews. Isay unbelieving Jews; for it is not to his 
purpose to show that such as believe and are already justified, are 
still under the condemning sentence of the law; nor could this be 

said without contradicting ‘what he frequently asserts, in the sequel 
of this epistle. 

In the way in which I interpret the quotations that follow, there 
is no difficulty with respect to the explanation of them, as they stand 
in the Old Testament. Butin the other method, which makes them 
universal propositions, and makes the original authors to speak 
directly to the point of universal depravity, the difficulty of exegesis 
is insurmountable. Several of these passages, as they stand in the 
Old Testament, must have absolute violence done to them, in order 
to make them speak in this manner. This in itself, is a strong reason 
for suspecting such an interpretation; and when united with the 


oe 


ROMANS I. 11, 12. 135 


other reasons named, seems to be amply sufficient to justify us in 
rejecting it. 

Let us proceed to consider each of the quotations separately. 
Ὅτι οὐκ . . .. εἷς, 18 ἃ quotation ad sensum of Ps. xiv. 1; where the 
Hebrew has © NYY PS; and the Septuagint, οὐκ ἐστι ποιῶν χρηστό- 
τητα, οὐκ ἐστιν ἕως ἑνός. In Ps. lui. (a repetition of Ps. xiv.), the Sep- 
tuagint has simply οὐχ ἐστι ποιῶν ἀγαθόν while the Hebrew is the same 
as above. It would seem, therefore, that the apostle had his eye or. 


_ his mind upon Ps. xiv., when he made the quotation before us; and 


that he has varied erat the diction, but followed the sense of the 
original. Instead of saying there is none that doeth good, he says, 
there is none righteous (idem per alia verba). The οὐδὲ cig of our 
text, evidently corresponds to the Septuagint οὐκ ἐστιν ἕως ἑνός. 

(11) Οὐκ ἐστιν συνιῶν . . .. Θεόν, corresponds to the Hebrew 
Drips ny 5 mab VN, whether there is any one who under- 
standeth, who seeketh afar God, Ps. xiv. 2. The question in the 
Hebrew implies a negative ; and a simple negative is made by Paul, 
who says, οὐκ ἐστιν x τ. A. The Septuagint runs literally: ἘΠ ἐστι 
συνιῶν ἢ ἐκζητῶν τὸν Θεόν. Paul has cited ad sensum, and nearly ad 
verbum. Συνιῶν instedd of συνιείς, as from συνίξω the old root. See ὃ 81 
of New Test. Gramm. Comp. ὃ 80. 

(12) Πάντες... . . ἑνός, cited exactly from the Septuagint version 
of Ps. xiv. 83. The Hebrew runs thus: 


spss) YT ἽΡ bon 


51 ny ps 
TOS D3 PS 


Whether all have gone out of the way, and together become cor- 
rupt? None doeth good, not even one. Paul omits, as the Septua- 
gint also does, the interrogatory sense of the first clause, made by 


oan (which is co-ordinate with &0 in the preceding verse), and ren- 
ders simply: Πάντες ἐξέκλιναν altogether ad sensum. 

The word συνιῶν in verse 11 means to have an enlightened know- 
ledge, viz. of God and duty. —'O ἐκζητῶν (Heb. Y4) means, to wor- 
ship God, to seek him in acts of devotion, meditation, &c., to be a 
devoted worshipper.—Ezéxxway in verse 11 means, have deportes 
from the right way, from the paths of piety and happiness. —’Hyge1d- 
θησαν, have henge corrupt, literally have become unprofitable or use- 


136 ROMANS iI. 13. 


less. But as the meaning is here a moral one, the first rendering is 
the most appropriate. 

In regard to the original meaning of eee quotations, there seems 
not to be much room for dispute. Who is it of whom the Psalmist is 
speaking? It is 533, ὁ ὁ ἄφρων, as ver. 1 determines. But are all men 
without exception ἄφρονες ἢᾧ Whatever may be the fact, yet it is not 
here asserted ; for in ver. 4 the workers of iniquity are expressly dis- 
tinguished from my people. In ver. 5, the generativn of the righteous 
is distinguished from the workers of iniquity. It is plain, then, that 
the Psalmist is here describing two parties among the Hebrews; the 
one wicked, yea altogether corrupt; the other righteous, 7. ¢., belong- 
ing to the true people of God. 

The application of this passage by the apostle is plain. All unbe- 
lievers, all who put not their trust in Christ, are of the same charac- 
ter with those wicked persons whom the Psalmist describes. And 
what is now true of them, was once true of present believers, 7. e., 
before they became penitent. 

(13) Τἄφος . . . . ἐδολιοῦσαν, verbatim with the Septuagint version 
of Ps. v. 10 (v. 9); which runs thus in the Hebrew : 


ὩΣ} MANB 3? 
mpyon: paiw> 


An open sepulchre is their throats ; with their tongues do they flatter, 
or speak deceitful things. Sentiment: ‘ As from the sepulchre issues 
forth an offensive and pestilential vapour; so from the mouths of 
slanderous persons issue noisome and pestilential words.’ Or if it 
may mean, as some suppose, that ‘their throat is like an open 
sepulchre, swallowing up and destroying all’ (Reiche, Barnes), then 
what is the sense of their tongues? This shows that notsome and 
pestilential falsehood and flattery or deceit, is the idea which is in- 
tended to be expressed.— Edorwtouy, speak deceit, deceive. ‘The form 
of the word is the Alexandrine or Beeotian -σαν instead of -», which 
is frequent in the Imperf. and 2nd Aorist; 6. 9.,éAdSoouy, ἐμάθοσαν, Ke, 
for 2raBov, guaboy, &e. ᾿Ἑδολιοῦσαν stands for ἐδολίουν, Imperfect active: 
see N. Test. Gramm. § 65. 8. 

The context in Ps. v. shows, that the workers of iniquity there 
mentioned are the party opposed to David. ‘Those who opposed the 
Son of David, are characterized by Paul in a similar manner. 

᾿Ιὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν, accords verbatim with the Septuagint 


ROMANS 111. 14—17. 137 


version of a part of Psalm cxl. 4. (cxl. 8). The Hebrew runs thus: 
ionay nom RWIy NN, the poison of asps, or of the adder, is under 
. their lips; ὃ, 6.5) their words are like poison, they utter the poisonous 
breath of slander. The phrase before us gives intensity to the pre- 
ceding description ; all of which, however, is not intended to desig- 
nate merely some specific kind of slander, but the sinful exercise of 
the tongue, which (as James expresses it) is rig, ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας, 
| ill. 6. | it a 
- Here again, the persons characterized are tne enemies of David. 
What was said of them may be applied, as the apostle here intimates 
by the quotation, to all those who refused submission to ‘ David’s 
Lord that sat upon his throne.’ 

(14) Ων cd... . γέμει, runs thus in the Septuagint: Οὗ ἀρᾶς τὸ 
στόμα αὐτοῦ γέμει καὶ πικρίας καὶ δόλου (Ps. ix. 7), which corresponds 
to the Hebrew in Psalm x. 7, MOI ΝΟ NB no’, excepting that οὗ 
is added by the Seventy, and also déAcv. The apostle has quoted 
the Hebrew, as it would seem, and exactly ad sensum, the suffix pro- 

: noun in¥5 being generic, and indicating a real plurality, which 
Paul expresses by ὧν. 

The violent and embittered enemies of the Psalmist are here char- 
acterized. ‘The application is the same as before. 

Πιχρίας is used to translate the Hebrew 1, which literally 
signifies fraud, deceit. Butas false accusations are here meant. 
which tend to destroy reputation and confidence, and proceed from 
bitterness of spirit, so σικρία (bitterness) is employed to characterize 
them, it being used ad sensuminageneral way. Or did the Seventy 
read NID, Litterness ? 

(15—17) ᾿οξεῖς . . -. ἔγνωσαν, abridged from Is. lix. 7,8. The 
Septuagint and Hebrew run thus: 


Οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν ἐπὶ πονηρίαν τρέχουσι, | DF yay sans as yp pen 
i ταχινοὶ ἐκχέαι αἷωα, καὶ οἱ διαλογι- | SB we Mian ὉΠ ‘ps 


σμοὶ αὐτῶν διαλογισμοὶ ἀπὸ φόνων" σύν- 5 
᾿ ἔ No pide) a: anibppa 7209 


σριώμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς 
| ‘ayy 


αὐτῶν, καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ οἴδασι. 


Here the expressions are altogether of a general nature, as they 
stand in the prophet, and plainly characterize a great part of the 


wegen ee 


lal ocak 


138 ROMANS 11. 18, 19 


Jewish nation in the time of the writer; compare Is. lix. 2, 4, 9— 
15. Of course this is still more directly to the apostle’s purpose, 
than the preceding quotations. Those correspond with his intention 
in the way of implication ; but the present quotation corresponds in 
the way of direct analogy. 

An inspection of the original will disclose how much the apostle 
has abridged it, in his quotation. Also in quoting he has substi- 
tuted ὀξεῖς for ταχινοΐ in the Septuagint; then passing by a whole 
clause, viz., “their thoughts are thoughts of evil,” he quotes the rest 
verbatim. Both the Seventy and Paul omit the Hebrew ‘?2 in the 
phrase ‘2 55, innocent blood.— Exy2a, 1 Aor. Inf. comes from ἐκχέω, 
Fat. ἐκχεύσω (in the New Testament ἐχχεῶ, as an Attic Fut. from 
the regular ἐχχέσω, N. Test. Gramm. ὃ 65. 3), 1 Aor. ἐξέχεα after 
the manner of verbs in 4, μ, », 0. A few verbs in Greek follow this 
method of forming the first Aorist. See Gramm. § 65. 10. 
Sentiment: ‘ They are ready and swift to engage in crimes of the 
highest degree; destruction and misery attend their steps, 1. 6.) where- 
ever they go, they spread destruction and misery around them. The 
way of happiness they take no knowledge of, or they give no heed 
to what concerns their own true welfare or that of others,’ 

(18) οὐκ ἔστι. ... αὐτῶν, is exactly quoted from the Septuagint, 
and corresponds to the Hebrew, excepting the final αὐτῶν, which in 
the Hebrew and Septuagint is in the singular number. But then it 
is the singular generic, and so corresponds exactly in sense to the 
plural αὐτῶν of the apostle. The Hebrew original is in Psalm xxxvi. 
1, and it runs thus: ὯΝ ἜΣ Dros 1B PS, there is no fear of God 
before his eyes; 7. e. he has no reverence for God, no fear of 
offending him which puts any effectual restraint upon his wicked- 
ness. 

(19) οὔδαμεν δὲ... . λαλεῖ now we know that whatsoever things the 
law saith, it addresses to those who are under the law ; i. e., we know 
that whatever the Old Test. Scriptures say, when they speak in the 
manner now exhibited, they address it to those who are in posses- 
sion of these Scriptures, viz., to the Jews.—Aé continuativum, nunc, 
German nun, English now, in the sense of a continuative.—Toi ἐν rw 
νόμῳ, those who have a revelation or are under the law; ἐν conditionis, 
compare what is said on é under chap i. 24. 

The object of the apostle is to show, that the Jews can in no way 
avoid the force of what is here said. It was originally addressed to 
the Jews, in a direct manner. What he has quoted was indeed 


; 
: 
: 


ROMANS 111. 19. 139 


spoken at different times, to different classes of persons, and uttered 
by various individuals. But still the principle is the same. Jews 
are addressed ; and the Jews are accused in the very same manner, 
ὦ. €. with equal force, by their own prophets whose authority is 
acknowledged, as they were accused by Paul. The principle then 
by which such an accusation is to be supported, is thus established. 
As to the actual application of this, and the facts respecting the 
conduct and character of the Jews in the apostle’s time; all the 
writings of the New Testament, of Josephus, and others, and the 
direct assertions of Paul in this epistle, go to show that no injustice 
at all was done to them in the present case. 

It is this principle, viz., that in consistence with the fidelity of 
God to his promises, and consistently with the ancient Scriptures, 
the Jews might be charged with wickedness even of a gross character, 


_ and such as brought them as truly under the curse of the divine law 


as the polluted heathen were under it,—it is this, which the apostle 
has in view to establish by all his quotations; and this he does 
entirely establish. When thus understood, there remains no impor- 
tant difficulty respecting the quotations. He did not need these proofs 
from Scripture, in order to settle the question about the depravity of 
the Gentiles. 'The Jews would reluctate only against the truth of the 
charges made against themselves. ‘The character of the heathen was 
too palpable to be denied. That of the Jews, indeed, was scarcely 
less so in the eyes of others: but still, they themselves expected to 
escape divine justice, on the ground of being God’s chosen people. 
All expectation of this nature is overturned by the declarations and 

Such as undertake to prove universal depravity directly from the 
texts here quoted, appear to mistake the nature of the apostle’s argu- 
ment, and to overlook the design of his quotations. It is impossible 
to make the passages in the Old Testament, as they there stand, to 
be universal in their meaning, without doing violence to the funda- 
mental laws ofdnterpretation. And surely there is no need of doing 
thus. The whole strain of the apostle’s argument at large, goes to 
establish universal depravity ; I mean the universal depravity of all 
who are out of Christ, and are capable of sinning. The doctrine is 
safe, without doing violence to any obvious principle of exegesis; 
which we never can do with safety. I need scarcely add, that Flatt, 
Tholuck, and nearly all distinguished commentators of the present 


140 ROMANS II. 19. 


day, so far as I know, agree in substance with the interpretation 
which I have nowgiven. Yet Reiche objects to the view here given, 
on the ground that it would represent Paul as arguing from his own 
authority and not from the Old Test. But what hinders such a sup- 
position? Does not Paul teach, exhort, reprove, make declarations 
and assertions, throughout the epistle, on his own authority? And 
had he not the same authority as the writers of the Old Testament? 
He appeals, indeed, to the Old Test. and often does so, for the satis- 
faction, or the confounding of the Jews. But we are not to suppose 
that Paul wrote this epistle without any reference to his own autho- 
rity as an apostle, after what he had set forth at the beginning of it. 
See some remarks on this subject on the next page. 

Ἵνα πᾶν. . .. Θεῷ, 80 that every mouth must be stopped, and the 
whole world become guilty before God. Ἵνα has here the eebatic 
sense, not the ¢elic; for to assert that the Old Test. was written 
principally to stop the mouths of the guilty, would be a singular 
position indeed. See the excellent essay of Tittmann on ἵνα, in the 
Bibl. Repository, No. I. of 1835.—Méy στόμα φραγῇ, t. e, every man, 
all men, whether Jews or Gentiles, must be convicted of sin, and be 
unable to produce any thing to justify their conduct; compare Job v. 
16. Ps. evii. 42. The phraseology is borrowed from the custom of 
gagging criminals, 7. e., stopping their mouths in order to prevent apo- 
logy or outcry from them, when they were led out to execution.— 
‘Yxédinog, Teus, sons, t. é., guilty, deserving of condemnation. 

But how extensive is the conclusion here? I answer, (1) It ex- 
tends to all who are out of Christ. I draw this conclusion, not so 
much from the mere forms of expression, such as πᾶν στόμα and aig ὁ 


κόσμος, as I do from the nature and object of the apostle’s argument. — 


What is this? Plainly his design is, to show that there is but one 
method of acceptance with God now possible; and this is in the way 
of gratuitous pardon or justification. But why is this necessary in 
all cases? The answer is: Because all have sinned. Certainly, if 
those who do not believe in Christ cannot obtain parden without him, 
this is because they are sinners, and have no claim on the score of 
justice or law. 

But (2) All who are in Christ, ἡ ¢., are justified, have once been 
sinners, and do still commit more or less sin, for which pardoning 
mercy becomes necessary. Once they were among the impenitent 
and unregenerate. What the apostle asserts then, in our next, of all 


Ss ΔὌΟοῦ 


ee 


" 


ROMANS Itt. 20. 141 


men, need not be limited, and should not indeed be limited, merely 
to those who are out of Christ at any particular time, but may be 
extended to all who were ever out of him. 

That this is a bond fide application of the principle which he here 
contends for, is clear from his own commentary on this doctrine in 
chap. iv. For what does he say there? He shows that even Abra- 
ham and David, as well as the grossest sinners, were justified only in 
a gratuitous way, being utterly unable to obtain the divine approba- ἡ 


tion on the ground δε perfect obedience. What is the inference 


from all this? Plainly that all men are sinners, and that none 
therefore can be saved by their own merits. So does verse 20 virtu- 
ally declare; and verse 23 says it explicitly. 

In form, the argument of Paul extends only to those who are out 
of Christ; but as this has once been the condition of all men without 
exception, so in substance it embraces all men without exception, 
who “by nature .are children of wrath, being children of disobe- 
dience ;” for “that which is born of the flesh, is flesh.” 

I cannot forbear to add, that it seems to me a wrong view of the 
apostle’s meaning in verses 10—19, which regards him as labouring 
to prove directly the universality of men’s depravity, merely by the 
argument which these texts afford. Paul has other sources of proof, 
besides that of argument; for if he himself was an inspired apostle, 
then surely his own declarations respecting the state of the heathen 
or Jews, were to be credited on just the same grounds as those of the 
ancient Psalmist and of the Prophets. Why not? And then, why 
should we be solicitous to show that every thing in Paul’s epistle is 
established by argumentation? Had the apostle no other way of 
establishing truth, except by argumentation? Are not his own de- 
clarations, I repeat it, as weighty and credible as those of the ancient 
prophets? Ifso, then we need not be anxious to retain the argu- 
ment as a direct one, in verses 10—19. Enough that it cllustrates 
and confirms the PRINCIPLE which the apostle asserts, and for which 
he contends. The argument from this principle is irresistible, when 
we once concede that Christ is the only Saviour of all men with- 
out exception ; for this cannot be true, unless all men without excep- 
tion are sinners. Of course I mean, all who are capable of sinning. 

(20) Διότε.. . . . αὐτοῦ, because that by works of law shall no flesh 
be justified before him. Διότι, on account of, because that, for. In 
this sense it differs little or nothing from γάρ. It is not employed to 
designate a logical conclusion from premises, but stands before a 


1412 ROMANS IIT. 20. 


clause which assigns a reason or ground of something already 
affirmed. Turretin, Morus, Rosenm., Bretsch. (iex.) have here mis- 
taken it for therefore; and I was misled by their authority, in the 
first edition of this work. The appeal of Bretsch. (lex.) to Acts xvii. 
31. Rom. i. 21. viii. 7, 1 Pet. ii. 6, does not at all support his con- 
clusion, διότι being employed in all these cases as above stated. 

"Egyoy νόμου, works of law, 2. 6.) such works as law requires; just as 
ἔργα Θεοῦ means, ‘such works as God requires or approves; and so 
ἔργα τοῦ "ACoadu, John vill. 39, τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν [τοῦ διαξόλου], 
John viii. 14; τὰ Zoya τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν, Rey. ii. 6; and so ἔργα τῆς πόρνης 
- τῆς σαρκός---«οὔ διαξόλου---τῆς πίστεως, &e., Ke. From these and a 
multitude of other examples, which every good lexicon and every 
concordance will supply, it appears entirely plain that éeya and ἐργον, 
followed by a Genitive which qualifies it, mean something to be 
effected or done, which is agreeable to the command, desire, nature, 
&e., of the thing which is designated by the Genitive noun. 

Concerning this usage, there is no just room to doubt. But the 
sense of νόμου has been thought to be less obvious. Does νόμος then 
mean ceremonial law, or revelation in general, or the moral law 
whether revealed or natural? Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
Pelagius, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Koppe, Ammon, 
and others, have explained νόμος as meaning the ceremonial law. But 
is this correct? ‘The meaning of a word which is capable of various 
significations, is always to be judged of by the object or design of the 
writer, so often as this is practicable. What then is the object of 
Paul in the present case? Surely it is, to show that both Gentiles 
and Jews need that gratuitous justification which the gospel pro- 
claims, and which Christ has procured; compare iil. 9, σἂν στόμα and 
πᾶς ὁ κόσμος ἴῃ 111. 19, πάντες in ver. 23, together with ver. 29. Com- 
pare also chap. i. 19—32 with ii. 17—29. Nothing can be more 
certain than that the conclusion of the apostle is a general one, hay- 
ing respect to Jew and Gentile both. But how can it be apposite to 
say, in respect to the Gentiles, that they cannot be justified by the 
ceremonial law? Did the apostle need to make a solemn assevera- 
tion of this? Were the Gentiles sinners, because they had not kept 
the ritual laws of Moses? So the apostle does not judge; see ii. 14, 
15, 26. How, then, can he be supposed to say in reference to the 
Gentiles (for the present verse refers to them as well as to the 
Jews), that by the law is the knowledge of sin? What gianna: 
of the ceremonial law of Moses did the heathen possess ὃ 


7 


—_—_ 


ROMANS III. 20. 143 


I remark in the next place, that transgressions of the ritual law 
are no part of the accusation which the apostle here brings against 
the Jews. In chap. ii. 17—29, he accuses them of breaking moral 
laws; and after having enumerated a long catalogue of crimes com- 
mon among the Gentiles in chap. 1. 19—32, he goes on immediately 
to intimate in chap. ii. 1,seq., that the Jews were chargeable with the 
same or with the like crimes. In ii. 14, seq., and ii. 26, seq., he in- 
timates that the law, inscribed upon the consciences and minds of the - 


heathen, inculcated those very things with regard to which the Jews 


were sinners. In ili. 9, seq., he brings Jews and Gentiles under the 
same accusation, exticuls charging all with being sinners, and sin- 
ners against a law which was common to both; as chap. ii. 15, 16, 
26, seq., most explicitly show. 

Again; when it is asked in Rom. vi. 15, Shall we sin because we 
are not ὑπὸ νόμον but under grace? what sense would there be in this 
question (which is supposed to be urged by an objector), provided 
the ceremonial law be meant? Would an objector in the possession 
of his senses ask the question: ‘ Have we liberty to break the moral 
law, 7. ¢., to sin, because we are not under the ceremonial?’ Or, 
‘because the ceremonial law will not justify us, may we not break 
the moral law?’ Yet νόμον in Rom. vi. 15, is plainly of the same 
nature as νόμος in 111. 20, 

Finally ; the apostle every where opposes the δικαΐωσις or δικαιοσύνη 
of the gospel, to that justification which results from works in gene- 
ral, works of any kind whatever; 6. g., 2 Tim. i. 9. Eph. ii. 8, 9. 
Tit. ui. 5. Rom. iv. 2—5, 13—16. iii. 27. xi. 6. and in many other 
places. In all such cases, justification by works means a meritori- 
ous justification, while that which is by faith means a gratuitous 
justification. 

From all this it results, that νόμου must here mean the mare law, 
whether written, or unwritten, ὦ. 6.) law in general, any law whellics 
applicable to. Gentile or Jew, any mate which prescribes a duty by 
obedience to which men might claim a promise of reward. Nor can 
this duty be limited merely to what is external. Surely the law of 
God, whether natural or revealed, does not have respect merely to 
the external conduct of men; it also has reference to the state of 
their heart and feelings. So does Paul teach most explicitly, in 
Rom. 11, 28, 29, in Rom. ii. 16, and very often elsewhere, 

Understood in this way, the phrase ἔργα νόμου is plain. Neither 
Jew nor Gentile can be justified before God on the ground of obe- 


144 | ROMANS III. 20. 


dience; “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God;’ 
each one has broken the law under which he has acted; the Gen- 
tiles, that which was written on their minds and consciences, ii. 14, 
15; the Jews, that which was contained in the Scriptures, ii. 27. 
Now as the law of God, revealed or natural, requires entire and per- 
fect obedience, just so far as it is known and understood, or may be 
so without criminal neglect on the part of men; and since “the soul 
which sinneth must die,’ and “he who offendeth in one point is 
guilty of all;’ it follows of necessity that all men, whether Jews 
or Gentiles, while in an unconverted state, are under the condemning 
sentence of the law; and therefore that they cannot possibly claim 
acceptance with God on the ground of perfect obedience. Nay, so 
far are they from this, that they can expect nothing but condemna- 
tion and misery from simple retributive justice being exercised toward 
them under a pure system of law; for ‘all have sinned,” and there- 
fore “all have come short of the glory of God.” 

In no other way, as it seems to me, can the general course of 
argument by the apostle be understood and interpreted so as to pre- 
serve consistency with the other parts of this epistle, and with his 
other writings, or so as to harmonize with the particular design and 
object of the writer. Accordingly Storr, Flatt, Tholuck (not to 
mention a multitude of the older commentators), haye explained 
ἔργων νόμου substantially in the same manner as I have done. 

I add merely, that the question here is, whether men in their 
present state and character, being actual transgressors, can be justi- 
fied by thelaw. The generic and abstract question, whether human 
nature is capable of fulfilling the law, is not the subject of discus- 
sion. Nor can this be a question of moment, so far as the simple 
doctrine of justification is concerned; inasmuch as it is quite certain 
that all men born in the natural way, who are capable of sinning, 
do sin. 

Aimain joeras, see ON δικαιοσύνη in 1. 17, where the verb διχαιόω is 
also explained. It means here to be accepted and treated as havin 
fully kept the precepts of the law.—Od πᾶσα... .. σάρξ--- Wa" >> N?, 
noone; a true Hebraism in all respects. Indeed the expression 
would hardly have been intelligible to a mere Attic Grecian, there 
being nothing like it in his own dialect. 

If all the world are ὑπόδικος τῷ Θεῷ, then must it be true that none 
can be δικαῶς before him in a legal sense, ἡ, 6.) on the ground of per- 


fect and meritorious obedience. ᾿Ενώπιον αὐτοῦ = ΒΡ, in his view, in, 


———— 


¢ 


ROMANS Itt. 20. 145 


his sight, in his presence. ‘The mind of the writer here contemplates 
mankind as standing before the divine POPE a) in order to be judged 
of the things done in the body. 

Διὰ ye... « ἁμαρτίας, for by law ts the ἀπουδδνησς of sin. ‘The 
γάρ here τᾶν ἐθὰς ὃ ΥΘΆΒΟΠ or ground why works of law will not 
justify. The law condemns but does not justify; and this, because 
men have broken it. Νόμου here must evidently mean the same as 
it does in the clause ἐξ ἐργων νόμου" which clearly signifies any law 
of a moral kind, either natural or revealed. ‘Turretin understands 
νόμου, in the phrase before us, as meaning the Jewish Scriptures. 
But inasmuch as the preceding phrase is general, it must be under- 
stood so here. All law is a rule of action, in the most extensive 
sense of this word, embracing the internal as well as the external 
developments of the human soul. By this rule all actions are to be 
scanned; the Gentiles are to scan theirs by the law written upon 
their own minds, ii. 14, 15: the Jews by their own Scriptures. The 
precepts of law, whether natural or revealed, by commanding this 
and prohibiting that, serve to make known the nature of sin; for all 
sin is ἀνομία, want of conformity to the law. ‘The simple design of 
the apostle in saying διὰ γὰρ νόμου ἐπίγνωτις ἁμαρτίας, is to remind 
those whom he addressed, that the law (any law either natural or 
revealed), so far from holding out to men who are sinners the pro- 
spect of justification before God and promising them acceptance with 
him, is the very means of bringing them, by its disclosures respecting 
the nature and guilt of sin, to a knowledge of their unhappy and 
desperate condition, inasmuch as it shows them that they are exposed 
to its full penalty for every transgression which they have com- 
mitted. The word ἐσίγνωσις is stronger than the simple word γνῶσις: 
and in this way the apostle means to intimate the clear knowledge 
of sin which the law communicates. 


CHAP. III. 21—31 


THE apostle having shown that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, and therefore are 


» obnoxious to the penalty of the divine law; having also declared (what must indeed be obvious 


from the fact just stated), that gratuitous pardon or justification is the only way of salvation now 
open for men; he proceeds to intimate, that this way of salvation is disclosed in the Old Testa- 


ment Scriptures, verse 21; even that justification which is proposed tv all men without distinc- 


K 


146 ROMANS ΤΠ. 21. 


tion, and conferred on all who believe in Christ, verse 22. No difference can be made, as to the 
need of such a justification, between the Jew and Gentile, inasmuch as all without exception are 
sinners, and therefore stand in the same need of gratuitous pardon, verse 24. Christ is set forth 
to all men as a propitiatory offering or sacrifice, the efficacy of which may be experienced by faith in 
his blood; and Christ is set forth in this manner, in order that God may manifest to the world 
the provision which he has made for the forgiveness of sins committed in former ages, and also 
under the new dispensation, thus disclosing a way in which his holy regard to justice may be pre. 
served, and yet his pardoning mercy be bestowed on the penitent believer in Jesus, verses 25, 26. 
All boasting then of salvation, on the ground of our own merits, is entirely excluded, because jus- 
tification by faith, from its own nature, must be wholly gratuitous, verse 27. Well may we con- 
clude, then, from all this, that we are gratuitously justified, and not on the ground of merit, verse 
28. God, moreover, justifies all on the same ground, because he stands in the same relation to 
both Jews and Gentiles, verse 29; both the circumcised and the uncircumcised he justifies by 
faith, verse 30. But are the Old Testament Scriptures annulled, by inculcating such doctrine? 
Not at all: for (as was before said, verse 21) they teach the very same doctrine, verse 31, 


(21) Νυνὶ 6... . πεφανέρωται, but now, the justification without 
law which is of God, is revealed. Νυνί, now, i. e., under the gospel 
dispensation, in distinction from ancient times, or former days.—Aé 
“particula diseretiva, opposita conjungens.”—Xwels vowsov, without 
law, i. e., without the aid or concurrence of law, or in such a way as 
not to be by means of law, or in a way different from or contrary to 
that of legal justification which rests solely on the ground of perfect 
and meritorious obedience. Χωρὶς νόμου, may be interpreted as quali- 
fying δικομοσύνη Θεοῦ, or it may possibly be joined in sense with πσεφανέ- 
ewras the meaning in either case may perhaps be substantially the 
same. I interpret it as qualifying δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, both on account of 
its position in the sentence, and because of its more appropriate 
meaning when thus construed; for thus considered it designates 
that this δικαιοσύνη is gratuitous, i. 6..) not on the ground of merit or 
legal obedience. 

Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ see on 1. 17.---- Πεφανέρωται, ts disclosed, manifested, 
revealed, viz., in or by the gospel. 

Μαρτυρουμένη .. . . προφητῶν, which is testified, ὦ, 6.» plainly and 
openly declared, by the law and the prophets, i. e., by the Old Testa- 
ment, the Jewish Scriptures; compare Matt. v. 17. vii. 12. xi. 13. 
xxii. 40. Luke xvi. 16. John i. 45.4 Mace. xviii. 10. The apostle 
means by this to aver, that he teaches no new thing; he only repeats 
what in substance has been declared respecting gratuitous justifica- 
tion, by the Old Testament Scriptures. And when he says γυνὴ . . 
πεφανέρωται, is NOW revealed, in the preceding part of the verse, he» 
means that this shall be emphatically (not absolutely) understood; 
otherwise the same verse would contain a contradiction of itself. 


———— = ate mS) 
Oe ass Boy ὁ i? 


Wet = 


ROMANS Int. 22. 147 


He designs to say, that gratuitous justification is more fully and 
amply revealed by the gospel. _ 

What is merely hinted in the declaration before us, Paul goes on 
fully to develop in chapter iv. 

(22) What that δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ is, which is χωρὶς νόμου, the apostle 


. next proceeds explicitly to develop. δικαιοσύνη δέ... -. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 


the justification then which is of God by faith in Jesus Christ. This 
explanation makes it clear as the noon-day sun, that δικαφρσύνη Θεοῦ, 
in this connection, does not mean unrighteousness or the love of jus- 
tice as an attribute of God. For im what possible sense can it be 
said that God’s righteousness or justice (as an essential attribute) is 
by faith in Christ? Does he possess or exercise this attribute, or 
reveal it, by faith in Christ? The answer isso plain that it cannot 
be mistaken. ‘The δέ here is placed in a clause added in the way of 
explanation, but containing something diverse still from the preceding 
clause. It may be regarded as equivalent to the Latin videlicet, the 
German nadmlich, and our English to wit, namely. So Bretsch. (lex.) 
Beneke. Reiche thinks it stands as adversative to χωρὶς νόμου. Τὸ 
me it séems plainly to stand in a clause which is a resumption of the 
preceding δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ for the sake of further explanation. The 
Attics often employed δέ as a sign of resumption ; see Passow on δέ. 
In such a case, it is equivalent to our, and so, therefore, then. The 
shade of thought appears to be this: ‘As it is a justification χωρὶς 
νόμου, then or therefore (62) it is a justification by faith ;’ or the sense 
will be good it we construe thus : ‘a justification χωρὶς νόμου, namely 
(8) a justification by faith’ But this latter usage of δέ without any 
adversative sense in any respect, seems hardly admissible. Bretsch. 
(lex. δέ, 3. 4) has failed to prove it by his citations. The Attic 
usage in resumption seems to be the most facile mode of explanation; 
because a resumption for the sake of further explanation implies 
some diversity of declaration, and 6 is designed to note any thing of 
this nature. ‘The translation of it is indeed difficult, because of the 
poverty of our language; and it must be different according to the 
different nature of the sentiment and the connection. In the present 
case then, (German also) seems to give the sense of the original, as 
nearly as we can give it by a version. 

Διὰ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, by Christian faith, te 6. by that faith of 


which Jesus Christ is the object, ’Ijood Χριστοῦ being Genitivus objecti; 


for most clearly it is not faith which belongs to Christ himself, but the 
faith of sinners towards him. The meaning of the apostle is, that 


148 ROMANS III. 22. 


the gratuitous justification which the gospel reveals, is that which is 
to be had by believing and trusting in Christ as our Redeemer and De- 
liverer; compare vers. 23—26. Faith, indeed, is not to be regarded as 
the meritorious cause or ground of justification (which is wholly gra- 
tuitous, ver.24), but only asthe means or instrument by which we come 
into such a state or relation, that justification can, consistently with 
the nature and character of God, be gratuitously bestowed upon us. 

Eis πάντας καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας, to all and uponall. Luther understands 
ἐρχομένη before εἰς πάντας, 1. 6.) [δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ ἐρχομένη] εἰς πάντας. The 
sense is good; but may not the same end be attained in another 
way? May we not construe εἰς πάντας as connected with rspavéguras? 
I am aware that φανερόω usually governs the simple Dative after it 
in such cases; but then it is equally certain, that the New Testa- 
ment writers often use the Accusative with εἰς instead of the simple 
Dative, or the Dative with é see Bretschn. Lex. εἰς, 5. b. Very 
naturally may we suppose, that after repavigwras the persons would 
be named to whom the revelation is made. May we not suppose 
them to be designated by εἰς πάντας 

᾿᾽Επὶ πάντας appears to mark the subjects, who receive the δικαιοσύνη 
in question; which is clear from the τοὺς πιστεύοντας that follows and 
qualifies it. Iam aware, indeed, that many commentators suppose 
that πιστεύοντας belongs equally to both cases of πάντας. But may we 
not suppose, that εἰς πάντας denotes to whom the proclamation of 
δικαιοσύνη, gratuitous pardon, is made, 2. 6.» that it is made to all men? 
Καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας I should then consider as a kind of pa- 
renthesis thrown in to guard against the idea that the actual bestow- 
ment of justification is as universal as the offers of it. The offer is 
made to all men without exception; believers only, however, are 
entitled to the actual reception of it. My reason for supposing such 
a parenthesis here, is, that the writer immediately resumes the gene- 
ric or universal idea, οὐ γάρ ἐστι x. τ. λ., Which shows that his mind 
is intent on the illustration of εἰς πάντας, as his principal proposition. 
Besides this, the clause ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας is omitted in A,, 
B., C., Copt., 2th., Arm., Clem., Origen ; which shows at least that 
it was not deemed essential to the principal sentiment. The main 
object is to show, that there is no exception at all as to the need of 
that justification which the gospel proposes. As this is plainly his 
main point, Paul only suggests, here and there by the way, the 
extent in which the justification proposed is actually bestowed—éa? 
πάντας τοὺς miorsbovras.... καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ σίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ (ver. 26). 


β 


Sara 


ROMANS III. 23. 149 


 Ttis by overlooking these nicer shades and connections of thought 


in this paragraph, that many critics have come to the conclusion, 
that no difference exists here between εἰς πάντας and ἐπὶ πάντας. So 
Reiche; who thinks them to be merely intensive. But this is a posi- 
tion which seems to be contradicted by the course of thought before 
and after these expressions. Before ἐπὶ πάντας either ἐστί or rather ἡ 
δικαιοσύνη ἐστί seem to be implied; and then ἐπὶ is used in the sense of 
ad commodum, for; comp. Heb. viii. 8. Heb. xii. 10; see also 
Bretschn. Lex. ἐπὶ, III. 5. 

Οὐ γάρ ἐστι διαστολή, for there is no distinction or difference; 1. 6.5 ἴῃ 
regard to the matter of justification by faith or gratuitous justifica- 


tion; all men stand in the same need of it, and must perish withort 


it. In this respect there is no distinction whatever between Greek 
and Jew; for as all have sinned, so justification by deeds of law, i. e., 
by perfect obedience to the law, is an impossible thing, inasmuch as 
it is impossible that a sinner should lay in any proper claim to such 
a justification. The γάρ here is γάρ illustrantis vel confirmantis, the 
sequel being designed to illustrate and confirm the affirmation made 
above, viz., that the justification which is of God without law, 7. ¢., 
gratuitous justification, is revealed εἰς πάντας. 

(23) Πάντες γάρ. . . . Θεοῦ, for all have sinned, and come short of 
divine approbation, or of the glory which God bestows. The γάρ here 
is again γάρ illustrantis vel confirmantis, 7. e., it is placed at the 
commencement of a sentence which is designed to illustrate and con- 


firm the preceding assertion, and to show the reason why there is no 


διαστολή. ‘Yoregew comes from ὕστερος, last, and sometimes means (as 
its etymology would indicate) to be last or inferior, 1 Cor. xii. 24. 
viii. 8. 2 Cor. xi. 5. xi1.11. The passive voice (ὑστεροῦνται is passive) 
is used in the same sense (for substance) as the active; ὑστερέω mean- 
ing deficio, destituo, and ὑστερέομαι destituor, [am wanting in, Iam 
deficient in. The idea in our text is that of failing, wanting, being 
deprived or destitute of. ‘The verb, when used in this way, of course 
governs the Genitive by the usual principles of syntax. 

Δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ is rendered by many as I have rendered it, viz., the 
divine approbation. So indeed most commentators translate it: and 
with good philological support, inasmuch as δόξα often and even com- 
monly means praise, approbation, in the classics, and has a like sense 
in the N. Test., ὁ. g., John v. 41, 44. vii. 18. viii. 50, 54. xii. 43. 
Nevertheless, as δόξα very often means, by N. Test. usage, a glorified 
state, a splendid glorious condition, supreme happiness, it may be so 


150 ROMANS IIL. 24. 


taken here, and Θεοῦ may be construed as Genitivus auctoris, so that 
δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ would mean, the glory which God bestows, or of which 
God is the author. So Semler, Morus, Béhme, Chrysostom, Beza, 
Hammond, Bengel, Gléckler, and others. But still, as the subject 
is here that of justification, viz., acquittal, δόξης may be employed in 
the classic sense of opinion (here good opinion, approbation), 1. ¢., the 
approbation of the final judge of men, when they stand before his 
tribunal. The idea would then be, that inasmuch as all men have 
broken the law of God, so they cannot expect his approbation in the 
day of trial, provided they stand upon the ground of their own merits. 
Hence the necessity of some other method of justification different 
from that which is dy works of law. This opinion on the whole, 
seems to be the most apposite. 

(24) Δικαιούμενοι . . . . ᾿Ιησοῦ, [all] being justified freely by his 
grace through the redemption which ts by Christ Jesus. On the one 
hand the apostle declares that all have sinned, and thus they have 
rendered a sentence of acquittal and reward impossible on the ground 
of Jaw. He now asserts the counterpart of this, viz., that all who 
obtain justification must obtain it gratuitously and only by virtue of 
the redemption that Christ has accomplished; a proposition which 
contains the very essence of all that is peculiar to the gospel of 
Christ, or that can make a solid foundation on which the hopes of 
perishing sinners may rest. 

The ellipsis before and after δικαιούμενοι may be filled out thus: 
[πάντες] δικαιούμενοί [εἰσι] ; for δικαιούμενοι hore evidently stands in the 
room of a verb. In fact, verses 23, 24, are really two different sen- 
tences; while the present grammatical construction of them makes 
but one.—Awgedy, freely, gratuitously, in the way of mere favour 
Awgedy (Heb. 537) comes from δωρεά, donum gratuitum, beneficium ; 
and this, with δῶρον munus, δώρημα beneficium, and δωρέομαι dono, all 
originate from δίδωμι or διδόω to give. 

Τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι, by his grace, epexegetical of δωρεάν, and added to 
give intensity to the whole sentence or affirmation; comp. Eph. ii. 8, 
9. 2 Tim. i. 9. Tit. iii. 4, 5. 

᾿Ασολυτρώσεως, redemption. The force of this word may be best 
seen by recurring to its root λύτρον, which means, ‘the price of ransom 
paid for a slave or a captive, in consequence of which he is set free.’ 
Λυτρόω and ἀπολυτρόω both mean, to pay the price of ransom ; ἀπολυτρόω 
is somewhat intensive, and == pay off. Accordingly λύτρωσις and dao. 
λύτρωσις mean, (1) The act of paying this price; and (2) The conse- 


ROMANS III. 25. 151 


quences of this act, viz. the redemption which follows it. In this 
way the idea of ἀπολύτρωσις comes at times to be merely a generic 
one, 2. ¢., liberation, deliverance.—Tijg ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ designates the 
author of our redemption or liberation, viz., him who paid the ran- 
somand procured our freedom, when we were the slaves and captives 
of sin and Satan, and exposed to the wrath of God,i.18. The sequel 
defines more exactly what the writer understands by ἀπολυτρώσεως in 
this place. 

(25) The most important word in the translation of the first clause 


* of this verse, is ἱλαστήριον, the sense of which must first be determined. 


In classic Greek it is equivalent to the adjective ἱλάσιμος, propitia- 
tory, atoning ; which comes directly from ἱλασμός, atonement, propiti- 
ation; ἱλάσιμος, ἱλωστικὸς, ἱκαστήριος (the last threeare equivalents), and 
ἵλασμα, all come from ἱλάσκομαι Or ἱλάομαι (iAZowos Att.), which Homer 
always employs to designate the making of propitiation or atonement 
to the gods. The later Greeks sometimes used ἱλάσκομαι in the sense 
of being propitious. 

In our text ἱλαστήριον is an adjective used in an elliptical way, like 
other adjectives of a similar nature ; 6. g., χαριστήριον, σωτήριον, τὰ ἐτήσια, 
ra γενέθλια, &C. ‘The question naturally arises: What is the noun 
here to be supplied after ἱλαστήριον [5 it ἐπήθημα (ἐπίθεμα), cover; or 
μα, offering or sacrifice? 

In the first of these ways, the Seventy employ ἱλαστήριον: sometimes 
joining it with ἐπίθεμα, Ex. xxvy.17; but usually omitting ἐπίθεμα and 
using ἱλαστήριον alone, in thesame sense which both words would give; 
6. g. Ex. xxv. 18, 19, 20 bis, 22. xxxvii. (Sept. xxxviii.) 6, 7, 3, 8 bis. 
Lev. xvi. 2, 13, 14,15, &c. In all these cases whether ἱλαστήριον has 
ἐπίθεμα expressed or not, the Hebrew word is 753, covering, viz. the 
covering of the ark of the covenant in the most holy place, which was 
overlaid with pure gold (Ex. xxv. 17), over which the cherubim 
stretched out their wings (Ex. xxv. 20), and which was the throne of - 
Jehovah in his earthly temple, the place from which he uttered his 
oracles, and communed with the representatives of his people, Ex. 
xxy. 22; comp. Ex. xxxvii. 6—9. Into the inner sanctuary where 
the ark was, the high-priest entered but once in a year (Heb. ix. 7), 
when he sprinkled the "923 ἱλαστήριον [ἐπίθεμα with blood, in order 
to make propitiation for the sins of the people, Lev. xvi. 2, 15, 16. 

In like manner with the Seventy, Philo calls the M723, σῶμα ἱλα- 
orjgiovand ἐπίθεμα ihaorngroy,t. 6.7 ἃ propitiatory covering; Vita Mosis, 
Ill. 668. (Frankf. ed.) Also in de Prof. p. 465. 


152 ROMANS IIT. 25. 


Such is the Septuagint usage of ἱλαστήριον. But was Paul neces- 
sarily limited to this? Certainly not, inasmuch as the common 
Greek idiom afforded him another combination of ἱλαστήριον, vize | 
ἱλαστήριον ϑῦμα, propitiatory sacrifice or offering. So Dio Chrysustom, 
Orat. II. 184, ἱλαστήριον ᾽Αχαιοὶ τῇ ᾿Αϑηνῷᾷ, the Greeks [made] a pro- 
pitiatory offering to Minerva. So Josephus, ἱλαστήριον μνῆμα, a pro- 
pitiatory monument, Antiq. XVI. 7. 1. So in 4 Mace. xvii. 22, 
ἱλαστηρίου ϑανάτου αὐτοῦ, his propitiatory death. Symmachus in Gen. 
vi. 14, ἱλάσεις ἱλαστήριον. 

Which now of these two methods of construing ἱλαστήριον shall 
wechoose? Origen, Theodoret, Theophylact, Zicumenius, Erasmus, 
Luther, and others, have preferred the former: Hesychius, Grotius, 
Le Clerc, Kypke, Turretin, Elsner, Flatt, Tholuck, and others, the 
latter. ‘“Fatemur (says Turretin) expositionem illam [priorem] 
minus commodam nobis videri;” after which he goes on to say, that 
he understands by ἱλαστήριον an expiatory victim. I most fully agree 
with Turretin. . A good reason for this opinion is, that in the phrase 
ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ which follows, there is a reference to the ajua of the 
ἱλαστήριον. It may be said, that if Christ be represented as the mercy- 
seat which was sprinkled with propitiatory blood, αἵματι αὐτοῦ may 
refer to this. But my answer is, that such an image is unnatural ; 
for then Christ would be represented as a mercy-seat, sprinkled with 
his own blood; an incongruous figure, if the analogy of the Jewish 
mercy-seat be consulted. But if ἱλαστήριον means a propitiatory sacri- 
fice, then is the usage altogether congruous; inasmuch as the blood 
was sprinkled round about upon the altar, where the sacrifice was 
laid, Lev. i. 5, 11. iil. 8. 

There is another way of casting light upon this subject, viz. by 
investigating the meaning of σροέϑετο. In theclassics, zgori/9yus means 
(1) To lay before, to set before, e.g., to set any thing before one for 
him to eat; also to set a mark before one, or a punishment, or a 
reward; i. 6.) to propose. (2) Publicly to expose or to hold up to view, 
6. g., to expose goods, wares, &c., for inspection and sale; also to 
declare enmity, war, hatred, ἄς. (3) It means to prefer; which 
is the least common signification. In the New Testament zgor nus 
is sometimes used in the sense of purposing, decreeing, constituting ; 
6. gy Rom, i. 18, Eph. i. 9. So also in Joseph, Antiq. IV. 6, 5. 
But with this meaning the verb is intransitive, and of course is not 
followed by the Acc, case. 

Of these various meanings, the second classical one seems plainly 


νυ αν γς. ae Bae 


Oe OE ων δ΄’ 
pays ae eee - 


ROMANS ut. 25. 153 


to be that which is best adapted to our text; for this best agrees with 
the εἰς ἔνδειξιν and πρὸς ἔνδειξιν which follow. “Ov προξϑετο ὁ Θεὸς ἱλαστήριον 
may then be rendered, whom God hath openly exhibited to the world 
as a propitiatory sacrifice. But suppose now that we construe 
ἱλαστήριον as meaning mercy-seat, then where is the congruity of the 
image? Was the mercy-seat exhibited to the view of those for 
whom atonement was made? Never; the high-priest only saw it 
once in each year, on the great day of atonement. To avoid this. 


_eyident incongruity, one must render προέθετο, constituit; and then 


the evident reference made by it to εἰς ἐνδειξιν and πρὸς ἐνδειξιν, 15 lost 
or obscured. 

On the whole, I see no congruous method of interpreting the pas- 
sage before us, except by sohdsttak ἱλαστήριον propitiatory sacrifice. 
In respect to the sentiment which this rendering exhibits, compare 
John i. 29. Eph.v. 2. 1 Pet.i. 19. ii. 24. Heb. ix. 14. 1 Cor. 
y. 7. If iAaorgeiv be rendered propitiation (as in our English version), 
the sense will be the same. 

Διὰ τῆς πίστεως, by faith, t. e., this sacrifice then produces its pro- 
pitiatory effect, when faith is exercised in the blood, 2. 6.9 death of 
the victim which is offered. In other words: Christ makes expia- 
tion which is effectual for such, and only such, as trust or put confi- 
dence in his atoning blood, 7. ¢., who believe in him as the “ Lamb 
of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” So Glockler and 
others. 

Διὰ τῆς πίστεως may also be connected with δικαμούμενοι or with 
προξλετο SO Reiche and others; but not to so good purpose, nor so 
naturally, as with ἱλαστήριον. 

Ἔν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ means his bloody death; the expression and 
image being borrowed from the expiatory blood of the ancient sacri- 
fices. Faith in his blood or in the death of Jesus, as the means of 
expiation, seems to be the distinguishing trait above all others of 
true Christianity. The phrase ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ may also be con- 
nected with δικαμούμενο. So Reiche, Winzer, Fritsche, and others. 
The sense remains substantially the same. Or it may be connected 
with ἱλαστήριον, and still the same sentiment for substance be retained. 
So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Vitringa, Caloy, and others. 

Εἰς ἐνδειξιν. . . . πρὸς ἐνδειξιν. Two questions that are very impor- 
tant in respect to the interpretation of vers. 25, 26, arise here, viz, 
(1) Are εἰς and πρός used in this place as equivalent terms, and 
joined with dew as designating a sense which in both cases is the 


154 ROMANS 111. 25. 


same? (2) Is πρὸς ἔνδειξιν co-ordinate with εἰς ἔνδειξιν, 2. €., is it arranged 
in the same manner, and does it sustain the same relation to the first 
part of the whole sentence? As to the first question ; nothing can 
be more certain than that both εἰς and πρός stand before the Accusa- 
tive case, and before the Infinitive mode used as a noun in the Ac- 
cusative, in order to designate the intention, object, purpose, design, 
end, &c., of any thing; 6. g., εἰς ζωήν in order to obtain life, εἰς τὴν 
ἀνομίαν in order to commit iniquity, εἰς ὃ for which purpose, εἰς τοῦτο 
for this purpose, εἰς τὸ ἐωπαίξαι in order to mock, Matt. xx. 19, εἰς τὸ 
oravewsijvos in order to be crucified, and so in numberless instances ; 
see Bretsch. Lex. εἰς. The same thing is true of πρός" 6. 4.5 πρὸς τὸ 
Jeadjvas, in order to be seen, Matt. vi. 1 ; πρὸς παραχειμάσαι, for the 
sake of passing the winter, Acts xxvii. 12; πρὸς τὸ ἐπιϑυμῆσαι, in order 
to lust, Matt. v. 283; «gis οἰκοδομήν, for the sake of edification, Rom. 
XV. 23; πρὸς ἐντροπήν, for the sake of shaming you, 1 Cor. vi. 5, et al. 
sepe; see Bretschn. Lex. πρός, ILL c. 

So far then as usage is concerned, it is a perfectly plain case, that 
εἰς ἐνδειξιν and πρὸς ἐνδειξιν may be altogether equivalent. Tholuck 
thinks that the change of prepositions (εἰς ἀμ πρός) makes against 
the co-ordination of εἰς ἐνδειξιν and πρὸς évdeZu" and yet in commenting 
on verse 30 below, he is obliged to admit, that éx σήστεως and διὰ 
πίστεως are altogether equivalent. Such I take to be the case with 
the εἰς and πρός in question ; and therefore, Σ 

(2) I must, with Flatt, Turretin, and many other expositors, ex- 
plain εἰς ἐνδειξιν and σπρὸς ἐνδειξιν as co-ordinate. The arrangement of 
the thought stands thus: ὃν προέθετο ὁ Θεὸς ἱλαστήριον. . . « . εἰς ἐνδειξινν 
ὅν προέθετο ὁ Θεὸς ἱλαστήριον. ... πρὸς ἐνδειξιν' which arrangement fully 

zhibits what I mean, by saying that the expressions are co-ordinate. 
And this arrangement seems to be plainly and fully confirmed, by 
the antithetic comparison of πρὸγεγονότων (past) in one clause, and ἐν 
τῷ νῦν κιωρῷ (present) in the other. 

Τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, of his justification, t. ¢., of the justification 
which he proffers, or of which he is author. But here again is great 
diversity of opinion among commentators. Ambrose, Locke, and 
others, understand δικαιοσύνης as meaning veracity; Theodoret, So- 
cinus, Grotius, Bolten, Koppe, and Reiche, explain it as meaning 
goodness ; like the Hebrew ΠΡῚΝ, Flatt renders it sanctitas ; Tho- 
luck says that δικαιοσύνη, in Paul’s writings, always means righteous- 
ness or holiness; in which he is most surely mistaken. To my own 
mind nothing can be plainer, than that δικαιοσύνης has the same sense 


TI oe 


ROMANS III. 25. 155 


here as in chap. i. 17, and as in verse 22 above; where it seems too 
plain to be mistaken. What can be more congruous, than that it 
should be taken here in a sense which is homogeneous with δικαιωθή. 
σεται in verse 20, and δικαιμούμενοι in Verse 23? 

What now is the sentiment which is in accordance with this? It 
is as follows: ‘God has openly exhibited Christ to the world as a 
propitiatory offering for sin, unto all who believe in him, in order 
that he might fully exhibit his pardoning mercy (his δικαμοσύνη) in 
respect to the forgiveness of sins under the past and present dispen- 
sation.” 

Is not this plain and consistent sentiment, congruous with the 
design of the writer and with the nature of facts? How or why 
so much difficulty should have been made about the word δικαμοσύνης 
here, I am not able to explain. Turretin, indeed, calls the exegesis 


which I have given, “ frigida repetitio. . . . apostolo nostro haud 


satis digna.” I should have been better satisfied, if he had given 
some valid reason for such a remark; which it is always easier to 
make than to justify. One good rule in the explanation of Scrip- 
ture is, that the same writer, on the same topic, and in the same con- 
nection of reasoning and thought, must be construed as using the 
same phraseology in the same sense. All I ask here is, that a 
maxim so plain and reasonable should be observed. And where is 
the “ repetitio” in this case? Where has the apostle before said, 
that God had openly proposed to the world the propitiatory sacrifice 
of Christ, in order to exhibit his pardoning mercy for sins committed 
under the old and under the new dispensation? And as to the 
“ frigida ;” if there be any one sentiment in the whole New Testa- 
ment, respecting the efficacy of the atoning blood of Jesus with re- 
gard to power and extent, which stands at the head of all others, 
the sentiment here developed holds this very place. It has its 
express parallel only in Heb. ix. 15. I feel constrained, there-_ 
fore, to differ here exceedingly from Turretin, as to what he 
names frigida interpretatio. It is as opposite to this, as light is to 
darkness. 

Διὰ τὴν... Θεοῦ, through remission by the forbearance of God of 
sis formerly committed. That διά not unfrequently has the mean- 
Ing in respect to, in regard to, may be seen by consulting Matt. xviii. 
23, διὰ τοῦτο, in respect to this, viz., the sentiment which Jesus had 


"just uttered. So also, with another shade of sense, Matt. xxi. 48. 
᾿ς ~-Xxill. 34, διὰ τοῦτο, for the sake of this, on account of this ; Mark xi. 24. 


156 ROMANS ΠΙ. 26. 


Luke xi. 49. 1 Thess. iii. 7, διὰ on account of. So Flatt on our 
verse: διά, in Ricksicht auf, i. e., in respect to. But still, I do not 
take διά here as meaning merely in respect to, in regard to. A com- 
mon meaning of it is, per, propter. Here I understand it is desig- 
nating the manner in which δικαιοσύνη has exhibited itself, viz., by or 
through remission, &c. So Reiche. But there is another sense still 
in which it may be here interpreted ; viz., on account of, for the sake 
of remission, ἕο. This would make it co-ordinate with εἰς ἔνδειξιν 
κ᾿ το A, and with πρὸς ἐνδειξιν x. τ᾿ A.; and it would be rather more con- 
sonant with usual Greek idiom as to the meaning of διά, We should 
then have three co-ordinate clauses explanatory of προέθετο x. τ. λ., In- 
stead of two. I should embrace this last interpretation, were it not 
that εἰς ἔνδειξιν and πρὸς ἐνδειξιν seem rather to favour the reception of 
only two co-ordinate clauses. The variation of the prepositions, in 
this case, would make nothing decisive against such an exegesis. 
Paul often varies them, where the sense is designed to be substan- 
tially the same. 

The clause διὰ τὴν πάρεφιν. . » « Θεοῦ, Must on the whole then, be 
regarded as epexegetical of the preceding δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, viz., his 
δικαιοσύνη Was manifested on account of, in respect to, the remission of 
sins committed in former times, &c. 

Πάρεσιν (from παρίημι) means remission, passing by, dismissing, &e.; 
and therefore it has the same sense with ἄφεσιν, as we should expect 
from the etymology of the word.—Igoysyoviray, formerly done, com- 
mitted in times before. In the sense of done, taken place, or com- 
mitted, γίνομαι is often used with respect-to actions ; 6. g., Matt. vi. 10. 
Luke x. 13. xxiii. 24, ix. 7. xiii. 17, et alibi; see Bretschn. Lex. 
γίνομαι, 3. 

(26) Ἔν τῇ ἀνοχῇ, during the forbearance of God. The uniting of 
this clause with verse 26, seems to be a mistake in Robert Stephens ; 
for it is better connected with the preceding verse, and has reference 
either to πάρεσιν ΟΥ̓ προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων. But to which of these? 
Does the writer mean to say, remission . . . . through the forbear- 
ance of God to punish sin; or sins formerly committed, while God 
forbore to punish? The latter sense might be made out; for ἐν often 
has the sense of during, dum est; 6. g., Matt. xii. 2, ἐν σαξξάτῳ, dur- 
ing the Sabbath; Matt. xiii. 4, ἐν τῷ σπείρειν, inter serendum, during 
the action of sowing ; John ii. 23, ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, during the feast; John 
vii. 11. Acts viii. 33. xvii. 31. Rey. i. 10. But the former sense is 
preferable, and gives the idea of remission as introduced by, or con- 


ROMANS III. 30. 157 


nected with forbearance to punish. Both together make the idea of 
justification an intensive one. 

As to the general sentiment of the clause, it has in some respects 
a parallel, in Acts xvii. 30. “As to the times of this ignorance, 
ὑπερίδων ὁ Θεός," t. 6.9 God forbore punishment. But in our text the 
apostle speaks of the actual remission of sin which is connected with 
justification, 2. ¢., the pardon of sin. 

Πρὸς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὑτοῦ, is the same in all essential respects 
as εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὑτοῦ in verse 25, for it is a mere resumption 
of the latter. "Ev τῷ viv καιρῷ, at the present time, i. e., under the new 
dispensation. Thus has the apostle shown, that the propitiatory sac- 
rifice of Christ extends, with respect to its efficacy, to all ages of the 
world, to all generations and nations; ὁ. 6.7 that it is capable of such 
an extent, where such a faith as God requires is exhibited. The 
parallel of this remarkable and most cheering and animating senti- 
ment, is to be found in Heb. ix. 15. It is implied in other passages 
of the New Testament, not unfrequently; but it isno where else so 
explicitly asserted. The sentiment shows, moreover, in what light 
the apostle viewed the death of Christ. Ifthis were to be regarded 
only as the death of a martyr to the truth, or as an example of con- 
stancy, &c., then how could its efficacy take hold on προγεγονότων ἁμαρ- 
τημάτων, Whatever it might do as to those who lived after his death 
took place? ‘This question seems to suggest the necessity of ascrib- 
ing a vicarious influence to the death of Jesus; for how else can it 
avail for the forgiveness of sins committed in early ages? 

Reiche, indeed, and some others, think the προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων 
relates merely to the sins of individuals before their conversion ; and 
so he doubts whether any promise of forgiveness is extended to sins 
committed after conversion; and there has been a serious controversy 
in Germany, excited by Loeffler, whether sins after regeneration are 
pardonable. How this could be called in question, after considering 
the examplesof David, Peter, and others, and reflecting onsuch texts 
as 1 John ii. 1, 2, may justly be thought strange, if any thing in theo- 
logy could be called so. According to the interpretation of Reiche, 
ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ 18 deprived of any important meaning. Mr. Barnes also 
rejects the idea that προγεγονότων refers to past ages, and thinks that 
the text requires no more than to understand it as designating the 
past sins of each individual living under the gospel. But what in- 
ducement the apostle could have to put in προγεγονότων on such a 
ground, or how προγεγονότων ἁμαρτίων could differ from the simple 


158 ROMANS It. 26. 


ἁμαρτίων, as individually applied, I do not see. Less still do I feel 
the force of his remark, that it would be difficult, on the ground of 
the exegesis which I adopt, to avoid the conclusion that all men will 
be saved. If there be any foundation for this in the text, it applies 
with equal force to gospel times, and must prove the salvation of all 
who live in them. But the apostle has fully avoided any conclusion 
ofthis nature, as to the time before or since the gospel was published, 
by stating that salvation is ἐπὶ πάντας rods πιστεύοντας. Besides, 
ἐν τῷ viv καιρῷ is evidently emphatic and antithetic; and the antithesis 
can be found only in σρογεγονότων ἁμαρτίων. The question is, 
‘whether Christ is the only Saviour of the race of man;’ and this 
naturally extends to past ages, as well as present. Such a view ex- 
ceedingly ennobles the whole subject, and is altogether consonant 
with the epistle to the Hebrews. Comp. Rom. y. 

Eig τὸ sivas. . . . ᾿Ιησοῦ, that he might be just, and yet the justifier 
of him that believeth in Jesus, i..e., has the faith of a Christian. 
Here again is a great diversity of sentiment concerning δίκαιον: some 
making it to signify kind, benignant, for which they appeal to Matt. 
i. 19. John xvii. 25. 1 Johni. 9, and the frequent signification of the 
Hebrew PS and ΠΡῚΝ, But although the word is capable of this 
sense, the connection does not seem to admit it here, as it would 
make tautology. The difficulty seems to be, that commentators have 
overlooked the logical connection of the whole clause. The εἰς τό at 
the beginning of it, shows that it has a like object with «fg ἐνδειξιν and 
πρὸς ἐνδειξιν, and is co-ordinate with them. There seems to me, how- 
ever, to be this difference, viz., that in εἰς τὸ εἶναι δίκαιον x. τ. 2, the 
writer looks back to the whole sentiment proposed in verses 21—24; 
which is, that all men are sinners, that a regard merely to law, #. é., 
justice merely on the part of God (he being δίκαιος merely) does not 
in itself permit justification by overlooking or setting aside the pen- 
alty against sin, and that the death of Christ is an expedient of infi- 
nite wisdom, by which the full claims of the law may be admitted, 
and yet the penalty avoided, because a moral compensation or equi- 
yalent has been provided by the sufferings of him who died in the 
sinner’s stead. Here then are two things conspicuous, in this won- 
derfiil arrangement of wisdom and benevolence; the first, that God 
will not give up the penalty of his law without an adequate substi- 
tute for it, for he is δίκαιος, t. e., he retains a high and immutable re- 
gard to justice or rectitude, he is unwilling to sacrifice any part of 
the purity and strictness of his law, which is ‘holy, and just, and 


. 


ROMANS III. 27, 28. 159 


good ;’ the second, that God has still provided a way by which he 
may retain all his regard to justice, and his law remain without be- 
ing in any measure dishonoured or sacrificed, and yet the penitent 
sinner may be pardoned and treated as though he had yielded per- 
fect obedience to it. These I take to be the sentiments conveyed by 
δίκαιον and δικαίουντα in this passage. Bengel has happily expressed it; 
“Summum hic paradoxon evangelicum; nam in lege conspicitur 
Deus et condemnans, in evangelio justus ipse et justificans, pecca- 
tores.” As 1 can find no case in-which δίκαιος appears to mean either 
justified or justifying, I must retain the sense of just in this place. 

Tov 2x πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ is like of ἐκ περιτομῆς, of ἐξ ἐριθείας, ἕο. The 
phrase may be correctly translated: The believer in Jesus, or him 
who is of the faith which believes in Jesus, i. ¢., the true Christian 
believer. ᾿Ιησοῦ is the Gen. of the object. 

(27 ποῦ οὖν ἡ καύχησις ; where then is boasting or glorying? That 
is, if what I have said be true, viz., that all men, both Jews and Gen- 
tiles, are sinners, and can be justified only by grace through the re- 
demption that is in Christ Jesus; then it follows, that all boasting of 
their own merits, all occasion of glorying in their special privileges is 
entirely excluded. This has a special reference to the Jews, who 
were so prone to boast of these things. 

Διά ποιοῦ νόμου ; by what law or economy? Νόμου appears to be used 
here in the sense of religious economy or dispensation, i.e. that 
which ordered or regulated the lives of men, and prescribed the 
reward of actions either good or bad. 

Tay ἐργων; 2. 6.5) 1s 10 excluded, διὰ νόμου τῶν ἐργων; Is it excluded by 

_ that economy or rule of life, which places justification on the ground 
of perfect obedience to the law, 2. 6.7 of entirely performing all those 
works which the law demands? 

Οὐχὴ . . . . πίστεως, nay, but by the economy or rule of faith. 

. That is, faith being the condition of justification under the gospel 
_ arrangement or νόμος, this excludes all claims of desert on the part of 
{ the smner. The very statement of itself shows, that although faith 
ὃ 
ΕἾ 


is & conditio sine qué non of justification, yet it is not the meritorious 
or procuring cause of it. Νόμου πίστεως means that arrangement 
_ which makes faith necessary to salvation, but which, at the same time, 
bestows salvation merely as a gratuity. 

7 — (2B) Λογιζόμεθα. . .. νόμου, we conclude, therefore, that a man is 
justified by faith, without the deeds of the law, i. e., we reckon or 
count it as certain, that men are justified in a gratuitous manner 


100 ROMANS ΠΙ. 29—31. 


through faith in Christ, and not by perfect obedience to the law or 
by perfectly doing those things which the law requires. What is 
meant by the phrase being justified by faith, is sufficiently plain 
here, inasmuch as it is opposed to justification by works ; z. e., on the 
score of merit or perfect obedience. See remarks on chap. iv. 5. 
For γάρ here, some Codices, &c., have οὖν; which gives a better 
sense, inasmuch as the conclusion here is a logical inference and not 
a mere casual suggestion. But as the weight of authority is on the 
side of γάρ, I have followed this in the regular version. 

Luther translates σύστει, ALLEIN durch den Glauben, i. e., by faith 
only, thus adding only to the text. And such were his views on 
this subject, that he rejected the epistle of James from the canon of 
the New Testament, because he thought that the second chapter of 
this epistle taught a doctrine different from that which Paul here 
inculeates. I must refer the reader to Excursus II. for a brief view 
of this subject. _ 

(29) Ἢ "Iovdaiwy . . . . ἐθνῶν; Is he the God of the Jews only? Is 
he not also of the Gentiles? ‘That is, why should it not be acknow- 
ledged, that “the God of the spirits of all flesh,” who “ has made of 
one blood all the nations that dwell upon the face of the earth,” and 
who of old was named }78) OXY mp ‘Y>¥y—why should he not 
sustain the same relation to the Gentiles as to the Jews, and admit 
them to the like privileges? The 7 here is simply interrogative. 
But an interrogation made by this, supposes that the person who is 
addressed will agree in the answer with the person who puts the 
question; so nicely are the Greek interrogative signs adjusted. 

(30) He should, he must be so regarded. Nai, zai [Θεὸς] ἐθνῶν. To 
confirm this he adds: ἐπείπερ... . . . πίστεως, since it is one and the 
same God, who will justify the circumcised by faith, and the uncircum- 
cised by faith. is, one and the same; so Luke, xii. 52. 1 Cor. x. 
17. xi. 5, et al.’ Ex πίστεως and διὰ τῆς πίστεως are of the same im- 
port ; for both ἐκ and διά are placed before the Genitive as signifying 
in the same sense the instrumental cause, in almost numberless ex- 
amples. —Tegiroujv and ἀκροβυστίαν are examples of the abstract put for 
the concrete, = Jews and Gentiles. 

(31) Νόμον ody... . πίστεως; Do we then make void the law through 
faith? That is, do we counteract or annul the Old Testament 
Scriptures, by inculcating gratuitous justification? So I feel obliged 
to construe νόμον here, when I compare this verse with vers. 20, 21, 
and with chap. iv. where the object of the writer throughout is, to 


ΨΥ νυν see 


Wa, w= a ν 


Ὁ. κι ee ne ee 


@ 


ROMANS IV. 1. 101 


show that the Old Testament inculcates thesame doctrineasthat which 
he here urges. So Flatt, Koppe, Tholuck, and others. Chrysostom 
also says véwov here: τοῦτο [1. 6.) δικαιοῦν] οὐχ, ἴσχυσεν ὁ νόμος. The 
argument which renders this exegesis quite plain, is that the apostle 
immediately proceeds to answer the objection here made, by showing 
that the Old Testament actually teaches the doctrine in question. 

Νόμον ἱστῶμεν, we confirm the law; ὁ. 6.) we inculcate that which 
entirely accords with the Old Testament, and only serves to con- 
firm it. ‘Iordev, is the unusual contract-form, from ἱστάω instead of 
ἵστημι. 5 

How gratuitous justification can be said to confirm or establish the 
moral law (as this text has been often explained), it seems difficult 
to make out. It would seem to be the atonement which goes to 
establish the claims of the moral law; how can remission of the penalty 
of itself establish such a law? That the doctrine of justification by 
faith does not, indeed, overthrow moral obligation ; yea, that such a 
justification even serves in a most important way to promote holiness 
of life; the apostle shows in chap. vi.» But his present concern 18 
with the objection made to his sentiments, viz., the objection that he 
is weakening the force of the ancient Jewish Scriptures. Accord- 
ingly, he discusses this question at large in the following chapter. 


CHAP. IV. 1—12. 


THE writer now proceeds to show, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament do in fact confirm 
the view which he had given of gratuitous justification. To the question: What special-advan- 
tages were bestowed on Abraham, in consequence of his peculiar covenant relation to God? the 
apostle replies, that he had no cause of glorying before God, on the ground of any external 
privilege which was his, verses 1,2. The Scripture asserts, that Abraham’s faith was imputed to 
him for righteousness ; and consequently that he was gratuitously justified, verses 3, 4. So also 
David speaks of the subject of justification, representing it as gratuitous forgiveness, not as ac- 
ceptance pro meritis, verses 6—8. If it be asked now, whether such forgiveness belongs only to 
those who are circumcised, ὁ, 6., to Abraham and his natural posterity, the answer is, that such 
¢annot be the case; for Abraham was himself justified antecedently to his circumcision; and he 
received this rite merely as a token of confirmation in respect to the blessing already bestowed, 
and in order that he might be a spiritual father, i. ¢., an eminent pattern or exemplar of spiritual 
blessings, both to Gentiles and Jews, verses 9—12. 

Verses 1—12 may be divided into three distinct parts, if the reader desires it; viz., (1) 

L 


102 ROMANS VI. 1. 


Vers. 1—5, the justification of Abraham was gratuitous, (2) Vers. 6—8, David discloses the same 
views as to the method of acceptance with God. (3) Vers. 9—12, circumcision was not, and could 
not be, any ground at all of the justification of Abraham. I have, however, chosen to connect these 
under one general head, because I view the third particular as the answer to the question in ver. 
1, and the first and second particulars as being preparatory to this, and also as having respect 
to the main design of the writer, which is, to show that the Old Testament Scriptures do in fact 
exhibit the same views of justification which he has given in the preceding context. The par- 
ticular introduction to the remaining parts of the present chapter, will be found in its appropriate 
place. 


(1) Ti ody... . κατὰ σάρκα ; What then shall we say that Abra- 
ham our father obtained in respect to the flesh? This question is par- 
allel with those in chap. iii. 1. The apostle evidently suggests it as 
one which an opponent to his views would naturally ask. The im- 
port -of it is: ‘ How then will your doctrine concerning justification 
as entirely gratuitous, agree with the views which the Seaipture leads 
us to take of Abraham ? Had he no advantage from his precedence 
and privileges? Was the covenant and rite of circumcision, by 
which he was distinguished from all the rest of the world, of no avail 
in his case? Such is evidently the tenor of the discourse, whether 
we suppose the apostle to put such interrogations in his own person, 
or in that of his opponent. 

Od», then, i. e.. on the ground which you take, what can we say, 
ὥς, ἢ The use of οὖν in questions where objections are raised, is very 
common among the Greeks. The meaning I have given above.— 
Τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν, our father, shows that the objector here is supposed 
to bea Jew. Evgyxévas obtained; comp. Luke i. 30. Heb. ix. 12,— 
Κατὰ σάρκα is a controverted phrase here. Should it be united in 
sense with τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶνξ Or must we join it with ebenxivar? If 
the question here concerned the relation of Abraham respectively as 
a spiritual father and as a natural one, we should feel in a measure 
necessitated to join κατὰ σάρκα with τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν. Chrysostom, 
Erasmus, Limborch, and others, do thus join it; and some manu- 
scripts, in accordance with such views, have transferred εὑρηκέναι and 
placed it before τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν. But as the weight of authority is 
against these ; as the hyperbaton or transposition, taking the text as 
it now stands, would be abrupt and improbable if we should join 
κατὰ σάρκα With τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν; and especially as xara σάρκα would 
not then add any thing to the idea designated by τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν; so 
it would seem to be more eligible, to regard κατὰ σάρκα as qualifying 
εὑρηκέναι. One meaning which has been given here to σάρξ, is external 
privileges or advantages ; and the appeal is made to 1 Cor, x. 18. 


ee Se Δ ΕΥ̓ a 


ROMANS Iv. 1, 163 


Phil. iii, 3. Gal. vi. 12,in order to confirm this; but these texts 
all plainly relate to circumcision. Σάρξ sometimes means that which 
is external or physical, in distinction from that which is internal or 
spiritual; 6. g., Gal. iv. 23. Rom. ix. 8. In accordance with this 
general idea, and with probability on their side, Wetstein, Venema, 
Michaelis, Koppe, Bretschneider (Lex.), and others, understand by 
κατὰ σάρκα in our text, circumcision; σάρξ being frequently used to 
designate the physical member which was circumcised, or fleshly 


_¢ircumcision, 6. g., Phil. ii. 38, Gal. νἱ. 12. 1 Cor x.18. Eph. ii, 


11. Col. ii. 13; comp. Gen. xvii. 11, 14, 24, 25. Tholuck makes 
the objection to this exegesis, that the apostle does not undertake, in 
the sequel, to show that circumcision was not the ground of Abra- 
ham’s justification, but that works were not. He also suggests, that 
the second verse seems to construe κατὰ σάρκα as being equivalent in 
sense to ἐξ ἐργων, Calvin renders κατὰ σάρκα, naturaliter; and Grotius, 
propriis viribus; to support which appeal has been made to Matt, 
xvi. 17. Gal i. 16; but there the phrase is, jesh and blood. But 
if we consider κατὰ σάρκα as the opposite of κατὰ πνεῦμα, and regard 
πνεῦμα as designing the gracious spiritual influences vouchsafed to 
believers under the gospel, the meaning of κατὰ σάρκα would then 
be: ‘In respect to efforts by one’s own natural powers, or efforts 
made in one’s own strength.’ This is the interpretation which for 
substance Tholuck defends. If however χατὰ σάρκα is to be taken 
as qualifying εὑρηκέναι (and so the present text compels us to take it), 
I must prefer the predominant sense of it in the epistles of Paul, viz., 


an respect to circumcision; comp. 111. 1. where the very same ques- 


tion is put in a more literal way. The meaning of the question 
would then be: What good or advantage has Abraham cur father 
obtained, in respect to the distinguishing rite which separated him 
from all the world and consecrated him to God? Of what use was 
it? The apostle in answer to the like question in chap. 111. 1. shows 
that the Jewish nation were all under sin and under condemnation, 
and that they can therefore lay no claim to justification on the 
ground of external privileges. The objector, however, is not satisfied 
with this general answer, but now suggests the case of Abraham as 
a more urgent one, and wishes to know whether we can justly hold 
that no pre-eminence was given to him on account of the covenant 
and the rite of circumcision. The apostle in his answer does not 
deny, or rather he tacit/y admits, that Abraham enjoyed some ad- 
vantage on account of his external privileges. He admits the same 


164 ROMANS Iv. 2. 


thing expressly of the whole Jewish nation, iii. 2. But as to the 
great subject in question, viz., gratuitous justification, Paul ayers at 
once that Abraham was not justified at all on the ground of his 
external advantages, or of any merit; for then he would have had 
matter of boasting. But this he has not before God; whatever may 
be the praise .which his privileges or his conduct in general may 
deserve from men. 

The particular reason why Paul introduces the case of Abraham 
here, in distinction from that of the Jews at large, seems to be, the 
use which he is to make of it in the sequel, in refuting the assump- 
tion of the objector. After showing in verses 2—9, that the justifi- 
cation of Abraham must have been gratuitous, the apostle proceeds 
to a special refutation of the idea that Abraham could have been 
justified κατὰ σάρκα, ὃ. 6.5 on account of the rite and covenant of cir- 
cumcision. Tholuck is therefore mistaken, when he states that the 
apostle has not laboured to contradict this groundless objection of 
the Jew. Indeed he has made this contradiction so prominent and 
striking, that one cannot well avoid the supposition, that he had 
this thing 3 in view when he used the phrase zara σάρκα. 

(2) Ei yg... - καύχημα [no ground of boasting], for if Abra- 
ham was susished by works, he haa ground of boasting. This is the 
real response of the apostle, which is marked by the nature of the 
sentiment. Γάρ is often implied in making replies; but when so 
employed, it is often the case that something is zmplied which is to 
precede it. So here the apostle means to say that Abraham had no 
καύχησις (comp. 111. 17), ὁ 6.5 no ground for attributing justification 
to his own merits. The γάρ, therefore, here follows οὐ καύχησις, 
which is to be mentally supplied before the clause in which the γάρ 
stands. It introduces the reason why he has no ground of glorying 
in his own works. 

That Abraham was not justified by any works or merits of his 
own, certainly not in the sight of God, the apostle now goes on to 
assert and toprove. When he says, εἰ, if, &c., he makes a supposi- 
tion which he regards as untenable ; for this is indicated by the Ind. 
Prater (ἐδικαιώθη) joined with εἰ; see New Testament Grammar, 
δ 129. 3. d. We should naturally have expected after this, that 
the Imperf. εἶχε ἄν (instead of ἔχει) would have been used in the 
apodosis of this conditional sentence. ‘The use of the present in- 
stead of this, shows a design on the part of the writer to say, not 
only that Abraham would have had ground of glorying, in case of 


ia: 


a a ee eee 


ee 


ΕΣ ΝΥ es 
nd De 7.9 ‘ 


ROMANS IV. 2. 165 


perfect obedience, but that the same would have continued down to 
the then present time. 

᾿Αλλ... « Θεόν, but not [ἴ. e he had no ground of boasting] 
before God. Whatever advantage then the Jew might attribute to 
Abraham, he could not justly attribute that of obtaining justification 
by his own privileges or merits. So the writer goes on to prove 
from the Jewish Scriptures. 

Od πρὸς τὸν Θεόν may be considered either as referring to ἐχει 


. καύχημα or to ἐξ ἐργων ἐδικαιώθη The sense will be substantially the 


same. The immediate antecedent, in such a case, has the prefer- 
ence; and therefore I consider it as referring to ἐχει καύχημα. 

It is singular, that such critics as Beza, Grotius, Semler, Koppe, 
Tholuck, and Riickert, should understand the reasoning of the . 
apostle in this verse thus; ‘If Abraham were justified by works, 
then he would have cause of glorying; he had glory indeed among 
men on this account, but not before God’ ᾿Αλλά in this case, is 
understood as concessive (in part) and at the same time adversative. 
But the sequel in verses 4, 5, introduced by y ἃ e conjirmantis, shows, 
that the apostle’s object is to prove simply, that Abraham had no 
ground of acceptance before God on account of his works or merit, 
but that he was justified altogether in a gratudtous manner. Inas- 
much thea as the apostle is not discussing the question, whether 
Abraham had any ground of praise or justification from men, but 
merely on what ground he was justified before God, the mode of 
reasoning stated above would be altogether inapposite to the writer's 
desion. Besides, if it were true that Abraham were justified by 
works, according to the supposition made, then it would be true also 
that he would have the praise of God as well as of men; so that the 
denial here of such a praise would contradict the nature of the case 
and other Scriptures; comp. 11. 6, 29. Reiche has examined at 
length and wholly refuted the above exegesis. 

The reasoning of the apostle may be simply stated thus: ‘If 
Abraham had been justified by his own merit, then he would have 
ground of glorying; but he has no ground of glorying before God; 
[therefore he was not justified by his merit.’] The conclusion is 
omitted by the apostle, apparently on the ground that every intelli- 
gent reader’s mind will supply it. But that he supposes such a con- 
clusion is clear from verses 3, 4, inasmuch as these are expressly in- 
troduced, for the sake of confirmation, as the γὰρ at the commence- 
ment of them shows. 


166 ROMANS IV. 3. 


(3) For what saith the Scripture? And Abraham believed God, 
and it was counted to him for righteousness; see Gen. xv. 6, which 
runs thus: “ And he [God] counted it to him [Abraham] as righte- 
ousness.” Instead of the active form, the apostle (with the Seventy) 
employs the passive one, which for substance communicates the same 
sense. But what is λογίζεσθαι εἰς δικαιοσύνην 2 

The word λογίζεσθαι usually means, to reckon to one what he actu- 
ally possesses, or to impute that to him which actually belongs to him, 
i. é., to treat him as actually possessing the thing or quality reckoned 
to him; 6. g., Ps. cvi. 31 (ev. 31), which states the case of Phinehas’ 
good deed in slaying the polluted Israelite and Midianitish woman, 
and says, ‘it was counted to him for righteousness’ (Num. xxv. 6, 
seq.); 2 Sam. xix. 19, where Shimei prays David: μὴ λογισάσθω ὁ 
Κύριός μου ἀνομίαν, ὃ. @., the iniquity which Shimei himself had done. 
The same in Ps. xxxil. 2 (xxxi. 2), where David pronounces the man 
blessed, to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity (οὐ μὴ λογίζετάι 
ἀνομίαν). In Lev.’vil. 8 (vil. 18) the Sept. has οὐ λογισθήσεται αὐτῷ, 
viz., the informal and untimely offering which any oné makes, shall 
not be reckoned to him as an offering. So in Ley. xvii 4, ifa man 
kill a victim for sacrifice without bringing it to the door of the 
tabernacle, “ blood,” 7. ¢., bloodguiltiness, “ shall be imputed to him, 
ἐχεινῶ λογισθήσεται. . . . alu.” Num. xviil. 27, “Thus your heave- 
offering λογισθήσεται ὑμῖν, shall be counted to you as wheat from the 
floor, &c., Prov. xxvii. 14, “He that blesseth his friend with a 
loud voice, rising up early in the morning, a curse shall be counted to 
him.” (2807, the Sept. does not employ λογίζομαι here). These are 
all the instances in the Old Test. where the word 2’, which cor- 
responds to λογίζομαι, is employed in designating any action, word, or 
thing, as imputed or reckoned to a person: and in all these, it is 
uniformly one’s own doings, words, or actions, and not those of 
another, which are imputed. The verb 2/9 is indeed often em- 
ployed in other cases; but only in the sense of thinking, supposing, 
imagining, devising ; or else as signifying making account of, regard- 
ing, or esteeming ; all of which cases have no direct bearing on the 
present investigation. 

In the New Test. the word λογίζομαι is often employed, like the 
Hebrew 22M, in the sense of thinking, computing, reckoning, esteem- 
ing, regarding, supposing, considering, devising, meditating, &c.; in 
which senses it has no direct bearing on our present enquiry. The 
only cases that are apposite to our purpose, are those in which some- 


ἑ 


ΡΥ Ν. τ 


ROMANS IV. 3. 167 


thing is imputed or counted to persons. ‘These, independently of the 
instances which relate directly to Abraham’s case, are 2 Cor. y. 19, 
where it is said: “ God was in Christ, reconciling the world to him- 
self, not imputing (μὴ λογιζόμενος) to them their trespasses, ὦ. 6.7) their 
own sins. In 2 Tim. iv. 16, Paul says of those who forsook him: 
ἐς μὴ αὐτοῖς λογισθείη, let it not be imputed to them,” i. ¢., let, not their 
offence be reckoned tothem. All the other cases in which λογήζομαι 
is employed in the sense of reckoning something to an individual, are 
-of one tenor, and have respect either to Abraham himself, or else to 
those whose case is compared with his. ‘These may be found in 
Rom. iv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, Gal. iii. 6. James ii. 23. 
In Rom. vy. 13, 2Adoyz?ras is construed by many as meaning imputed 
or counted, but I apprehend the true meaning to be regarded, made 
account of. In Philem. ver. 18, the same word again occurs, and 
there in the sense of reckon, or put to the account of. But this is a 
different word from λογίζομαι, which is now before us, and is never 
employed in respect to the matter of justification. In all the cases 
of λογίζομαι as applied to Abraham’s faith, or to that of others who 
follow his example, it is only Azs or their own faith, which is counted 
for righteousness ; not the faith of others put to their account. 

But another point of no small philological interest to be investi- 
gated, is the peculiar form of the expression λογίζομαι ei ¢. Indeed 
the sense of the passage before us seems, at first view, as if it must 
turn upon this. But here nothing except resort to the Hebrew idiom 
can solve the difficulty ; for the form of expression is purely Hebra- 
istic. The Hebrews had two modes of expression when they said 
that one, thing was counted or reckoned as another. (1) The thing 
counted or reckoned was put in the Accus. after 28; and the thing 
for which or as which it was counted, was put in the Dat. with 
α΄ (sic) before it; 6. g., Job xiii. 24, and avn, and thou dost 
count me for an enemy. In like manner, Job xli. 19, 24. xix: 15, 
xxxii. 10. 1 Kings x. 21. Lam. iv. 2, where the Pass, retains the 
Dat. after it. (2) The thing counted was put in the Acc. as in 
No. 1, while the thing for which it was counted took the particle 2 
before it; ὁ. 9.. Job xix. 11. 83 ΣΤ, and he counts me as his 
enemy. So Isa. xl, 15. Num. xviii. 27. Once (Ps. lxxxyiii. 5) we 
have ὮΝ (with) instead of 3 (as.) 

In accordance with the first mode (the Acc. of the thing and the 
Dative of the person with ?) are most of the cases where any thing 


108 ROMANS ΤΥ͂. 3. 


is said to be reckoned or imputed to individuals; 6. g., Ps. xxxii. 2 
(xxxi. 2.) Gen. xv. 6. 2 Sam. xix. 26; and with the Pass. voice re- 
taining the Dat. after it, Lev. vii. 18 (vii. 8.) xvii. 4. Num. xviii. 


27. Prov. xxvii. 14. In Ps. evi. 31, we find ? both before the thing 
reckoned and person to whom it is reckoned. 

I do not apprehend that any important difference as to the sense 
can be pointed out between the two modes of expression in the He- 


brew as designated above, viz., δ avn and 2 3wn, The form royi- 
ζομαι εἰς, Or λογίζομαι ὡς OY ὥσπερ, is employed by the Sept. for 2 avin, 


6. g., εἰς for > in Job xli. 24 (28). Lam. iv. 2; ὥσπερ for 5 in Job 
ΧΙ. 19 (18.) xxxiii. 10. In like manner, ὡς is put for 3, in Num. 
xvill. 27. Is. xl. 15. Job xix. 11 (ὥσπερ) Nor do I apprehend that 
λογίζομαι εἰς and λογίζομαι ὡς or ὥσπερ have any perceptible differ- 
ence of meaning. And in our text, whether we say with the 
apostle : καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην, and it [t. e., Abraham’s act 
of believing] was counted to him for righteousness ; or say, in more 
exact conformity with the shape of the Hebrew; καὶ αὐτὸ ἐλογίσατο 
αὐτῷ ὡς δικαιοσύνην, i. 6.. he [God] imputed it [the act of believing] to 
him as righteousness: the sense is one and the same. ‘The bare 
expression, in and by itself, and simply considered, can mean no 
more than that God imputed the act of believing to Abraham as 
righteousness. 

The gratuity then of Abraham’s justification cannot be made out, 
as it would seem, merely from the mode of expression here employed. 
This of itself would not decide the point. It decides no more than 
that God reckoned Abraham’s faith as a righteousness or righteous 
act. And so the same thing is said of the act of Phinehas, Ps. cvi. 
31. And in general, where one’s own act is said to be imputed to 
him, whether it be a good or bad one, the meaning is not of course 
that it is gratuitously imputed to him, but that it is imputed to him 
because it belongs to him, and therefore the imputation or reckoning 
to him accords with the reality. 

On this account some commentators have considered Paul here 
as putting a forced sense upon the words of Gen. xv. 6, which they 
say, decides nothing more than that God counted to Abraham an 
act of faith as righteousness, which was indeed such an act, and 
therefore deserved to be so counted. And further, to confirm this 
view they suggest, that faith is a puTy, and therefore to be placed 
on the same ground with all other duties ; and that Christ himself 


τ rh i, Sao Ἢ - 


ROMANS IV. ὃ. 169 ° 


calls it the work of God, viz., the work which God requires, John vi. 
29. How then, they ask, can this prove the gratuitous justification 
of Abraham ? 

The difficulty at first view seems to be considerable. Neverthe- 
less a due consideration of the nature of the case will help, I trust, 
to remove it. 

There are but two methods of acceptance with God, or of justifi- 
cation before him, which are possible: the one by complete obedience 
to the law of God, and therefore on the ground of merit; the other, 
by gratuitous pardon and acceptance vouchsafed to him who has 
broken the law. The simple point which Paul is here labouring to 
establish, is, that the first method of justification is impossible, under 
the present circumstances of men and with their present character ; 
and consequently that gratuitous justification is the only way of 


- acceptance that is now open. 


Now Abraham either kept all the law, or he did not. It is taken 
for granted, (as well it might be, after what the apostle had said,) 
that he did not.. Justification on the ground of merit then, is out 
of all question. ‘There remains therefore only gratuitous justifica- 


tion. 


But how much must gratuitous be supposed to mean? Does it 
imply that there is no condition on which the gratuity is to be be- 
stowed, no regard to character, state of mind, penitence, confidence 
in proffered: mercy, or any thing else? Certainly not. The gospel 
with all its freeness and largeness of beneficence, promises salvation 
only to those who believe. “He that believeth, shall be saved.” 

Here then is the general principle, or conditio sine qua non, of 
free and unmerited pardon and acceptance. Does the example of 
Abraham confirm and ratify this principle? It does. It is an in- 
stance in point. He. believed, and righteousness was counted to 
him. But this could have been done in no other way, than that by 
belief he was brought within the pale of offered mercy. If. a man 
commits one sin, and thus comes under the curse of the law, all 
hopes of acceptance or salvation on law-ground are utterly at an 
end. But here Abraham, a sinner, once probably an idolater (Josh. 
xxiv. 14,) was accepted and treated as righteous, when he exercised 
an act of faith, which is the necessary condition of gratuitous par- 
don. Now this could. not have taken place, if Abraham had not 
been gratuitously accepted. The gospel condition of gratuitous 
justification was complied with by him, 7. e., he exhibited faith; and 


170 ROMANS ΤΥ. 3. 


so acceptance, such as the gospel promises, was the consequence of 
this faith, or was connected with it. 

Weare not to understand the apostle, as it seems plain to me, to 
assert that Abraham’s faith, as such, was in the particular instance 
related in Gen. xv. 1—5, the principal ground or meritorious cause 
of his final and complete justification. This would defeat the ex- 
press declarations of verses 4,5. In these he takes it for granted, 
that Abraham could plead no merit, and make no claim on the score 
of simple justice. He takes it for granted too, that justification by 
faith does of necessity imply, (as truly it does and must imply,) that 
the acceptance in such cases is a matter of mere gratuity, and not of 
merit or desert. 

Faith then may be a duty and a work, and may be one necessary 
to gratuitous justification, and may be required because it is reason- 
able in itself and necessary in order to prepare the sinner for justifi- 
cation: and yet the man who is already a sinner can put in no claim 
for acceptance on the ground of merit, because he exercises faith. 
Acceptance in this way must of course be gratuitous. 

Why then does not the apostle establish his point, when he shows 
that Abraham was accepted in consequence of believing, and not be- 
cause he had obeyed the whole law? 

No act of Abraham, after he had once fallen under the curse of 
the law, could of itself redeem him from that curse. Nothing that 
he did, or could do, would atone for past sins. And no act that he 
did would be perfect. Acceptance therefore on the ground of merit, 
was impossible in these circumstances; and any act of his, either 
faith or any other, if counted at all for righteousness, must be so 
counted gratuitously. But if so, then the very point which Paul is 
labouring to establish, is confirmed. 

It is the nature of the case then, and not the diction merely which 
is employed, that shows what it is which is here proved by the 
apostle. We might indeed make some appeal to the nature of the 
language. We might say, that faith is not properly obedience to the 
law, as such; certainly, it is not entire obedience. Nor was the faith 
that was exercised by Abraham full and perfect. At least we may 
argue this from the imperfect condition of any and every sinful man. 
That it should be counted for righteousness, then, would seem to im- 
ply, that it was counted for something which in and of itself it was 
not, i. 6.) it was not a perfect righteousness such as the law demands. 
To count it then for a righteousness would imply an act of grace on 


ROMANS Iv. 3. 171 


the part of God. Not that the apostie means to say, that God actu- 
ally, in his own real estimation, judged Abraham’s faith to be a dif- 
ferent thing from what it was, and a perfect virtue which of itself 
could claim acceptance with him. It is impossible for a moment to 
suppose this; because it would be supposing that God puts a wrong 
estimate upon things. We come therefore of necessity to the con- 
clusion, that counting for righteousness means, to accept and treat as 
righteous. More than this we cannot suppose, without at the same 
time supposing, that God makes in his own mind an estimate of 
things different from what they really are. 

It is highly important that the reader should here call to mind, 
a'so, that Paul is not now labouring to show in what relation Christ 
stands to all that find acceptance, as the meritorious cause or ground 
of their pardon. He had already shown this, in the preceding chap- 
ter. The simple point now before him is, whether justification 
through this Saviour is meritorious or gratuitous. Hence he does 
not say here, that the righteousness of Christ became the righteous- 
ness of Abraham by imputation or transfer. It was inapposite to his 
present purpose to discuss this point. He simply avers, that the 
conditio sine gua non of gratuitous justification was complied with by 
Abraham, who therefore was justified in a gratuitous manner. 
Whatever other parts of Scripture may teach in relation to the im- 
puted righteousness of Christ, no declaration on that point is to be 
found here. Abraham’s own faith, and an individual act of it, viz., 
his giving credit to the divine promises, is the subject of the 
apostle’s assertions. 

In a word; the shape of Paul’s argument appears to me as being 
substantially this, viz., ‘justification is gratuitous; for righteousness 
was not counted to Abraham on the ground of perfect obedience, but 
in consequence of his compliance with the necessary condition of 
sratuitous justification, 2. ¢., in consequence of his exercising faith. 
Now if he was accepted and treated as just on such ground, it fol- 
lows of necessity that he could not have been accepted on the ground 
of merit, and consequently that his justification was gratuitous.’ 

In other words; Paul introduces an individual occurrence and ex- 
ample in the life of Abraham, in which case faith was counted and 
treated as obedience, in order to prove that justification, even in 
respect to the most eminent of all the Hebrew saints, was a mere 
matter of gratuity. Now if this was true in his case, it must be 
im all others. And thus his object is gained by an illustration 


Ss ΤΥ τ 


᾿ 


112 ROMANS IV 4, 5. 


and confirmation of the principle which he is endeavouring to in- 
culcate. | 

(4) Τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ (Midd. voice), to him who worketh, i.e., to him 
who performs all the ἔργα νόμου, to him who yields entire obedience 
to the precepts of law ; compare the remarks on ἔργα νόμου under 11]. 
20 above. ᾿Ἐργαζομένῳ here is equivalent to ὁ ποιῶν τὰ éeya* comp. 111. 
20, 27, 28. 11. 15; also verse 6. below. Luther translates: Der mit 
Werken umgehet; Beza: Is qui ex opere est aliquid promeritus. 
Tholuck defends Luther’s version. To me it seems to convey truth, 
but not the whole truth. Better has Turretin said: Per eum qui 
operatur non intelligimus.... eos qui bona opera faciunt, sed eos 
qui perfecté implérunt legem Dei absque ullo defectu. 

Reiche thinks that this is giving an emphasis or intensity to the 
word ἐργαζομένῳ which does not belong to it. The ground of his ob- 
jection is, that in this way all rewards would be excluded, inasmuch 
as no man is perfect. But is it not true that all rewards of merit 
on law-ground, 7. 6.) that of entire perfection, are excluded? It seems 
to be a very clear doctrine of the New Testament, that the good 
works which are rewarded, are gratuitously rewarded in proportion 
to their desert of reward. Imperfect good works can now be 
accepted and rewarded, through grace by Christ, which under a law- 
system could put in no claim for reward or acceptance; a principle 
that does not seem to be generally understood. 

"0 wiobis .... χάριν, reward is not rewarded or counted as a matter 
of grace; %. 6.) it is his just due, as the sequel (ἀλλὰ κατὰ ὀφείλημα) 
shows: a due in consequence of the promise or engagement of reward 
which the law contains, and not because the obedience of men can 
really profit the Divine Being, so as to lay him under obligations on 
this account. 

(5) Τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ, but to him who does not yield perfect obe- 
dience; plainly the opposite of the first part of the fourth verse. 
The meaning is: ‘To the sinner who has not exhibited perfect 
obedience, but σιστεύοντι x. τ. λ., who believeth on him who justifieth 
the ungodly,’ ¢. ¢., on Christ who died for sinners, and on account of 
whose death they are justified ; comp. vy. 8—10. iv. 25, 1 Pet. iii. 18. 
Heb. ix. 28, et al. 

Λογίζεται. . «+ δικαιοσύνης, his faith is counted as righteousness ; 
i. e., through belief in Christ who died for sinners, he comes to be 
treated or accepted as if he were himself righteous; in other words, 
through the favour of God he is freed from the penalty of the law, 


π᾿ του οὐ παν σονυ ene wun 


———— 


——— er . 
ta he, the oe ΤΊ 
- | + τ -Ὦ 


ROMANS Iv. 6. 178 


and accepted and treated as he would be, had he been perfectly 
obedient. The meaning of the phrase, counted for righteousness, is 
of course the same here as in ver. 3; and in both cases it is very 
plain, that it signifies gratuitous or unmerited justification on the 
grounds already explained. We may add here, that by the apostle’s 
own explanation in the context, this justification is one which is zara 
χάριν (24), and χωρὶς ἐργων (verse 6.) While faith or belief then is 
absolutely necessary in order to prepare a man to become the proper 
‘subject of the gratuitous justification which the gospel proffers; 
while without faith he cannot be justified; yet faith is not in any 
legal sense the meritorious ground of justification, nor does the pro- 
mise attached to it imply a reward of merit, but only of grace. 

The whole matter lies in a short compass. ‘On the ground of 
works, 7. ¢., of perfect obedience and therefore of merit, none can be 
justified, because all are sinners. If any then are justified at all, it 
must be of grace; but this grace, although freely bestowed and 
without any just claims on the part of the sinner, is still not uncon- 
ditionally bestowed. faith in him who died to save sinners, is 
requisite to prepare one for the reception of pardon; and he who is 
justified in this way, as a consequence of his faith, is still justified 
in a manner altogether gratuitous.’ 

Some commentators suppose that Paul means to. characterize 
Abraham, by the μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ and τὸν ἀσεξῇ In verse 5. But although 
he doubtless means to include him, yet the propositions in verses 4, 
5, are of wider extent than an individual case, and they declare a 
general truth of which Abraham’s case is only a particular example 
or illustration. 

(6) Καθάπερ καὶ. . .. ἀνθρώπου, in the like manner, also David con- 
gratulates the man. The apostle having adduced the example of 
Abraham as being gratuitously justified through faith, now goes on 
to add the example of David, in order to show (what he had before 
asserted in iii. 31) that he does not disannul the Old Testament 
Seriptures by avowing the doctrine of gratuitous justification. λέγει 
μακαρισμόν, utters congratulation. Μάκαρ means happy; μακαρίζω, to 
call or pronounce one happy, ἰ.6.. congratulate; and of course waxa- 
ρισμυός, Means congratulation, not happiness. I have used the word 
congratulate in the translation here, because the words, utters praise, 
eulogizes, praises, &c. would not convey the idea of the original. 


Lelicem dicere the Latins could say; and we might translate pro- 


nounceth happy, &c. as I have done in the version. ὯΩ ὁ Oss... 


114 ROMANS IV. 7, 8. 


ἔργων, t. 6.,) whom God accepts and treats as righteous χωρὶς ἔργω,» 
without entire obedience to the law, without baw ing done all the 
works which the law enjoins; comp. verse 5 above, wit the refer- 
ences there. 170. impute righteousness without works, designates the 
same thing for substance as to count faith for righteousness ; both 
being designed to designate gratuitous justification. 

From the use made of δικαιοσύνη in verses 3—6 here (and elsewhere 
in this chapter where the same phraseology occurs,) it is evident 
that the word is not to be understood in the sense of justification 
(which is the more common meaning of it in our epistle,) but in the 
usual sense of ΠῚ, To say that faith was counted for JUSTIFICA- 
TION, would make no tolerable sense; but to say—it was counted as 
complete obedience, would be saying just what the apostle means to 
say, viz., that the believer is gratuitously justified, in the manner 
that his. been explained above. 

(7) Μακάριοι, happy, greatly privileged.— AgeSnour, are siviitad: 
from aginus to remit, forgive—‘ W hose sins ἐπεκαλύφθησαν are covered;’ 
a figurative expression, not unfrequently applied to the remission of 
sins. Jo cover or conceal, is to remove from sight or notice; and 
sins which are left out of sight and out of notice, of course are sins 
which are not punished. Comp. in Is. xxxviii. 17. Mie. vii. 19, 
Job. xiv. 17. ᾿ 

.(8) Happy the man, to whom the Lord imputeth not ἐγυϊφιϊέμ ὃ, 6.» 
the sin which he has committed. The meaning is: ‘ Happy the man 
who obtains forgiveness of his sins, and is accepted and treated as 
if he were righteous. To impute one’s own iniquity to him, is to 
hold him accountable for it in respect to the demands of punitive 
justice. 

To cover sins and impute not iniquity, means to pardon sin and to 
treat with favour; and this is substantially the same thing which is 
designated by counting faith for righteousness ; i. e., both forms of 
expressions denote gratuitous acceptance with God. They differ not 
as to substance of meaning, but as to modus of diction or costume. 

The apostle has now prepared the way to refute the special alle- 
gation designed to be made by the question in ver. 1, τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν 
᾿Αβραὰμ τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν εὑρηκέναι κατὰ σάρκα; He has shown that 
acceptance on the ground of merit or perfect obedience is out of 
the question; for even Abraham and Dayid were justified through 
faith gratuitously, and not ἐξ ἐργων, No ground of boasting, then, 
could be claimed by either of these conspicuous individuals, It was 


ROMANS IV. 9, 10. 175 


grace only that saved them. But if it is true in the general sense 
here stated, that salvation is in all cases entirely a matter of gratuity, 
a question still remains, viz. Is this gratuity bestowed only on those 
who are circumcised, ὁ, ¢., on the Jews only, or is it also granted to 
the Gentiles? The prejudiced Jew of course would hold to the first. 
Theapostle therefore, having discussed the general question, whether 
in respect to offences against the divine law, and in regard to the 
matter of justification, the Jew had any pre-eminence over the Gen- 
tile, now comes to the special consideration of the question about 
circumcision, which was first asked in chap. iii. 1, and again virtu- 
ally repeated by the εὑρηκέναι κατὰ σάρκα in chap. iv. 1. 

(9) The discussion on this particular point he now introduces by 
the inquiry : 'O waxagicwis.... ἀκροβυστίαν ; [Is] this congratulation. 
then respecting the circumcised [only|, or also the uncircumcised ; 
That is, granting there is cause for pronouncing blessed the man 
whose sins are forgiven and whose iniquities are covered, still it may 
be asked: ‘Does gratuitous pardon belong only to the Jews? Or 
are we to suppose that David may here mean to include the Gentiles 
also? Do God’s promised mercies belong to his own peculiar people 
only, who are of the circumcision; or are they also bestowed on the 


idolatrous heathen ? 


Λέγομεν γάρ supposes an implied answer in the affirmative to the 
preceding questions, viz., ‘ The privilege belongs also to the uncir- 
cumcised.’ That such may be the case, the apostle now proceeds to 
show, by the allegation that Abraham was justified in an uncireum- 
cised state. The inference is, that David could not mean to exclude 
such cases as that of Abraham himself. In this way the γάρ 15 easily 
accounted for here; and the like is often true respecting its reference 
to some implied sentiment; see Passow and Brettschn. on γάρ. For 
a like aposiopesis of the answer to a question, see iv. 2. 

(10) Πῶς ody... . ἀκροβυστίῳ Low then was it counted? While 
he was in a state of circumcision or of uncircumeision? Not in a 
state of circumcision, but of uncircumcision? In ἐν περιτομῇ x. τ. As, 
the ἐν stands (as often) before the Dative of condition, i. e., the Dative 


of a noun designating state or condition. 


The design of the writer is plain. Abraham’s faith was tmputed 


_ to him for righteousness, i. ¢., he was gratuitously justified, before the 
_ covenant of circumcision was made with him, and of course before he 
_ Was a partaker in this rite. Consequently the privilege in question 


176 ROMANS Iv. 11. 


is not limited to those who are circumcised, and therefore does not 
depend on circumcision. 

(11) Καὶ σημεῖον... « ἐν ἀκροβυστίῳ, and he received the sign of cir- 
cumcision as a seal of the righteousness by faith, which [he obtained] 
while in a state of uncircumcision. ‘That is, circumcision was not 
the cause or ground of his faith being counted for righteousness, or 
of his being gratuitously justified; it was merely a seal, 7. 6.5) a token 
of confirmation (for such is σφραγίς, 1 Cor. ix. 2. 2 Tim. ii. 19) in 
respect to the blessing which he had before obtained. The allusion 
in the language is to the practice of confirming written instruments, 
by seals placed on them in token of ratification. Τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς 
πίστεως, might here be rendered of the justification which is by faith ; 
but the idiom of this chapter rather points us to a different version. 
There is, however, no ground for mistake here inasmuch as the 
qualifying words τῆς πίστεως, in connection with what had before been 
said, sufficiently guard against it. 

We might naturally expect the article here, viz., τὸ onwetoy τῆς regi 
τομῆς, inasmuch as the thing is specific and monadic; but for this very 
reason also, the article may be omitted, because there is no danger of 
mistake; see N. Test. Gramm. ὃ 89, 2 a. ὦ. 

Σημεῖον means a symbol, a token, an external visible mark. In τῆς 
ἐν ἀκροβυστίῳ the τῆς isreferred by many to πίστεως ; but the nature of 
the case seems plainly to demand, that it should be referred to the 
compound idea designated by τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως. 

The circumstance here related is fatal to the claims of the bigoted 
Jew, with respect to circumcision. But the apostle is not satisfied 
with simply repelling the enemy. He advances into his camp, and 
takes entire possession. ‘Abraham was not only justified before he 
was circumcised, but this was done for the very purpose of confirm- 
ing the truth which I am proclaiming. He was justified before the 
covenant of circumcision, εἰς τὸ εἶναι... . . δικαιοσύνην, in order that 
he might be the father of all those who believe in a state of uncircum- 
cision, so that righteousness might also be imputed to them.” That 
is; God, in justifying Abraham before he was circumcised, did in- 
tend to make him a father, 7. ¢., an eminent leader, pattern, or exam- 
ple, to Gentile as well as Jewish believers, and to show that righte- 
ousness might be imputed to the uncircumcised as well as to the 
circumcised. Aj dxgoSusrin; is an example of διά conditionis, i. 6... of 
διά before anoun in the Genitive which designates state or condition. 


᾿ 


ROMANS Iv. 12. 177 


_ It is of the same import, when thus employed, as the Dative with ἐν 
as used above, and is here evidently commuted for it. The meaning 
of the whole verse is, that Abraham received the sign of circum- 
cision as a confirmation of his justification by faith in an uncircum- 
cised state; and this was thus solemnly confirmed in order that he 
- might be a spiritual father, 2. 6.9 an eminent pattern or example, to 
Gentiles who would also be gratuitously justified in an uncireum- 
eised state. 

Eis τὸ λογισθῆνάι x. τ. λ., designates the consequence, or the object 
in respect to which paternity and sonship existed, viz., that of being 
gratuitously justified, 7. 6., of having righteousness imputed to them, 
which means the same thing. The καί in this clause is omitted in 
A., B., several MSS. minusc., and some versions. It is unneces- 
sary; but still it does not mar the sense, as may be seen in the ver- 
sion. 

(12) In all this, moreover, the apostle admits that there was 
another object. in view, viz., that Abraham should be the spiritual 
father of the circumcised, as well as of the uncircumcised, ὁ. 6.0 that 
he should be an eminent example to all, both Jews and Gentiles, of 
that gratuitous justification which God bestows on men, and which 
is universally proffered under the gospel dispensation. So the sequel: 
Καὶ πατέρα, ... . ᾿Αβραάμ, and the father of those who are circum- 
cised, who are not only of the circumcision, but walk in the steps of 
that faith which our father Abraham had while in a state of uncir- 
cumcision. ‘The ellipsis in the construction of this part of the sen- 
tence must be filled up thus ; [ εἰς ro εἶναι] αὐτὸν πατέρα x. τ. A, which 
the mind spontaneously carries forward from the preceding clause; 
this second clause being co-ordinate with the preceding one which 
begins with εἰς τὸ εἶναι. The connection requires us to understand the 
apostle as asserting, that the sign of circumcision which Abraham 
received, as a seal of the righteousness of faith or a token of confirma- 
tion in respect to his gratuitous justification, was received by him 
in order that he might be the spiritual father of such Jews as imi- 
tated his example, as well as of Gentiles. The writer clearly makes 
the same distinction here, that he does in chap. ii. 28, 29. Not the 
literal posterity only of Abraham, or only his descendants by natural 
generation who received the external sign of circumcision in their 
flesh, were the children of this patriarch in the sense here intended. 
10 walk in the steps of Abraham’s fuith, means to follow the example 

M 


178 ROMANS IV. 12. 


of Abraham, to possess and exercise a faith like his. It is to such 
and only to such, that Abraham is a spiritual father. 

This last clause of the verse renders very plain what is meant, 
when Abraham is called the father of both Gentile and Jewish be- 
lievers. The word 28, πατήρ, employed in this way, designates (as 
before remarked) an exemplar, a pattern, a leading and eminent ex- 
ample after which others copy ; comp. for such a sense, Gen. iv. 20, 
21. John viii. 38, 41, 44, where the devil is called the father_of the 
wicked Jews, comp. also 1 Mace. ii. 54. So in the verse before us, 
the children of Abraham are those who walk in the steps of his faith 
ὃ, 6.5 imitate his example. 

One difficulty remains in respect to τοῖς στοιχοῦσ. The repetition 
of the article before it here seems as if the writer intended to dis- 
tinguish those whom it designates, from the τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον 
which (by placing the οὐκ before τοῦ) would mean, not only to these 
of the circumcision ; and then ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς x. τ. A. would mean, but 
also to those who walk, &c., ὦ, e., but also to Gentiles who imitate 
Abraham’s faith. ‘To this purpose the Syriac version, the Vulgate, 
Theodoret, Anselm, Castalio, Grotius, Koppe, and others. But the 
objection to this is, that heathen believers have already been men- 
tioned in the preceding verse ; and that the writer seems plainly here 
intending to characterize such Jews, and only such, as were the 
spiritual children of Abraham, ὦ 6.5 to whom he was a spiritual 
father. The repetition of the article before στοιχοῦσι in this case is 
indeed peculiar; Tholuck calls it a solecism, and Riickert says it is 
not to be tolerated. I regard it, however, as a resumption of the 
sentence begun with the preceding τοῖς, and interrupted by the οὐκ ἐκ 
περιτομῆς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ, the former part of which has the sense of an 
adjective qualifying the τοῖς; but inasmuch as the resumption gives 
a new characteristic, it was necessary that the part. στοιχοῦσι should 
have the article ; as in other like cases. In this view Reiche fully 
concurs. 


ΞΡ. 


ie” he 


Ὁ. ΡΥ 
“ ι] 


nS 


SF ΡΥ ge Ὑγ ΡΥ 


»» 
= 


ROMANS IV. 13. 179 


CHAP. IV. 18—18. 


THE apostle now proceeds to another illustration and confirmation of his assertions respecting 
gratuitous justification. The Jew gloried in belonging to a nation to whom God had given a 
revealed law, and looked upon the pre-eminence which this gave him, as a proof that God would 
treat him with special favour in a spiritual respect. The reader has only to look back, and re- 
peruse chapter ii. 17— 24, in order to seé what dependence the Jews were prone to place upon 
the knowledge which they possessed of the Holy Scriptures, and their superiority in this respect 
over the Gentiles. In order to take away all ground of glorying in this manner, the apostle here 
proceeds distinctly to remind them, that Abraham was not justified by any such privilege, the 
law having been given more than four hundred years after the time in which he lived. Such, 
then, as are his spiritual children, ἡ. ¢., such as are justified on grounds like those on which he 
was justified, cannot regard the law as the ground of their justification. 

The proof of the writer’s position is very striking, and could not fail to make a deep impression 
on the mind of a serious Jew. The manner in which it is exhibited, is well adapted to make 
such an impression. ‘Abraham,’ says the apostle, ‘did not receive promises for himself and his 
seed, on account of the law or by means of the law, but gratuitously, ἡ. 6., by the righteousness of 
faith, verse 13. Now if the possession of the law, or obedience to it, were necessary to constitute 
Abraham and his seed heirs of the promises, then heirship by faith, and the promises connected 
with this, would be annulled, because these were granted to Abraham before the giving of the 
law, verse 14. The law, moreover, is so far from being the ground of such promises, that itis a 
means of indignation on the part of God towards sinners, 7. 6., means of their punishment: for 
it is the prohibitions of the law which constitute and define transgressions, and if there were no 
law, there could be no transgression, verse 15. Such being the ease, the promises are not made 
on the ground of law, but through the instrumentality of faith, 7. e., gratuitously, in order that 
all the seed might be assured respecting them, both Gentiles who have not the law, and Jews 
who have it, provided they have like faith with Abraham, the spiritual father of all, verse 16. 
The Scripture points out such a relation of Abraham to all true believers, and he is regarded as 
sustaining such an one, by him who raises the dead to life, and calls things out of nothing into 
existence, verse 17. Such was the faith of the father of believers, that he put entire confidence 
in the divine declarations, when, to all human appearance, there was no ground to hope that 
they could be carried into execution; so that he became the spiritual father of many nations, 
Gentiles as well as Jews, according to the tenor of the Scripture promise: So shall thy seed be, 
verse 18, 


Ὁ 


(18) οὐ γὰρ... .. σπέρματι αὐτοῦ, for not by the law was the promise 
made to Abraham, or to his seed. Yde is fixed to a sentence, the 
object of which is to confirm the preceding declaration, that 
Abraham was the spiritual father of both Jews and Gentiles, not by 
any external rite or privilege, but through faith.— Διὰ νόμου through 
law, by means of the law. The writer designs by it either to desig- 
nate the possession of the law, the privilege of living under it, and 
being the depositary of it, or else he means obedience to it. 1 *m 
inclined to give it the former sense here, on account of the οἱ ἐκ νόμου 


180 ι ROMANS Iv. 13. 


in verse 14, which rather designates such as live under the law than 
those who fulfil it. 

What the promise made to Abraham and his seed was, the writer 
proceeds to tell us, viz., τὸ κληρονόμον... ... κόσμου, that he should be 
heir or possessor of the world. This expression is found literally in 
none of the passages which contain the promises made to Abraham, 
Gen. xii. 1—3. xv. 1—6. xvii. 1—8. But in Gen. xy. 5is a pro- 
mise, that the seed of Abraham should be like the stars of heaven 
for multitude; and in Gen xvii. 5 it is said: “A father of many 
nations have I made thee.” ‘That the apostle had his mind intent 
upon this text, is plain from ver. 17 in the sequel. When he says, 
then, that the promise was that Abraham should be heir df the world, 


his meaning evidently is, that the seed of Abraham (in the sense — 


here meant, viz., his spiritual seed), should be co-extensive with the 
world, or (to use the phraseology employed in another of the promises 
made to Abraham), “in him should all the families of the earth be 
blessed.” Taken in the sense now adverted to, the phrase before us 
would imply, that the spiritual seed of Abraham should be co-exten- 
sive with the world, 7. ¢., should be of all nations. But there is a 
somewhat more figurative way of understanding the phrase to be heir 
of the world, viz., to take it as an expression that designates the re- 
ceiving of great and important blessings. In such a way most 
clearly are 787 YY χληρονομεῖν τὴν γήν to be taken, Psalms xxv. 13. 
xxxvil. 9, 11, 22, 29. Prov. 11. 21. Matt. v. 5. The former method 
of exegesis, however, is here to be preferred, on the ground, that 
ver. 17 develops the fact, that Paul here had a special meaning in 
reference to the extent of Abraham’s spiritual seed. 

In regard to that seed of Abraham to whom the promise was spe- 
cially made; who can this be but the Messiah? Who else of Abra- 
ham’s seed was to be possessor of all the earth, particularly in a 
spiritual sense? That Paul himself had such a view of this subject, 
is made quite certain by Gal. iii. 16. It is true, indeed, that in 
respect to the promises of a temporal nature made to Abraham, his 
literal descendants were the partakers and heirs of them; see Gen, 
xvii. 8. xv. 18. So also were they, that is, some of them, heirs of 
spiritual promises. But the specific promise to which the apostle 
alludes in our text, seems to have been made with reference to 
Christ, at least it seems to have been entirely fulfilled only in him, 
Gal. iii. 16. Reiche construes the promise here as haying respect to 
a new world, like that which the Millenarians expect, after the end 


δὼ“... ἐπα α .».... 


ROMANS Iv. 14, 15. 181 


of the present order of things; which implies a method of interpret- 
ing the Messianic prophecies that cannot be defended on the ground 
of rational exegesis. 

The promise in question was not διὼ νόμου, 7. e. on account of any 
privileges connected with the giving of the law, for the law was not 
yet given; but it was διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως͵ through the righteousness 
of faith, 7. e., it was gratuitously given in consequence of his faith ; 
see on lil. 22. | 

~ (14) Εἰ γὰρ. .- - - κληρονόμοι, Uf now they who are of the law, are 
heirs ; i. 6.. if they who live under the law and enjoy its privileges, 
are heirs of the promise made to Abraham and his seed. Γάρ here 
is prefixed to an additional clause designed to confirm the preceding 
one—vyée confirmantis. Οἱ ἐκ νόμου may mean, either those who rest 
upon the law, ¢. ¢., make their boast of having fulfilled it and so 
expect justification from it (in which way Tholuck and many others 
have understood it); or it may mean, those who enjoy the privileges 
and the distinction which a revelation confers. I prefer the latter 
sense as being more consonant with the special object of the apostle; 
which here is, to prove that no external rites or privileges can be the 
ground of justification before God. 

Kextvwra:.... ἐπαγγελία, faith is rendered of no effect, and the 
promise is made void. The reason of this is, that the promise was 
made to Abraham and his seed in consequence of faith, and therefore 
gratuitously ; but if those only who enjoy the privilege of living 
under the law are heirs of the promise, and are so without walking 
in the steps of Abraham as to faith, then the ground of the promises 
to Abraham is done away. Neither his faith, nor the promise con- 
nected with it, is of any avail; because neither of them stands on 
law-ground, and neither dependson the privilege of possessing the law 
or on the merit of obeying it. In a word, the ground of justification 
taken by those who plead for it ἐκ νόμου, is entirely diverse from and 
opposed to that by which Abraham was justified, and on which the 
promises were made to him; and if they are in the right, the pro- 
mises made to Abraham are of course null, because a new condition 
unknown to him and different from that under which he obtained 
blessings, would thus be introduced. 

(15)‘O γὰρ νόμος. .. παράβασις, for the law is the occasion of wrath; 
for where there is no law, there is no transgression. In verse 15, 
a reason is assigned why the promise would be made void, on 
the ground suggested; and this is, that the law was actually the 


182 ROMANS lv. 15. 


occasion of bringing upon the Jews divine displeasure, by reason 
of their offences against its precepts. It is on this account that 
the verse is introduced by γάρ causal. If there were no law, then 
there would be no transgression or sin. Allsin is, ἀνομία, 2. e., want 
of conformity to the law of God, either as to omission or commis- 
sion. Now as all men do sin, the law against which they offend 
(inasmuch asit prohibits and condemns sin) is the instrument of their 
condemnation, not of their justification. ‘This is indeed no fault of 
the law, which is of itself “holy and just and good” (Rom. vi. 12): 
the fault lies with the transgressor. But when such transgressor 
appeals to the law as the ground of his justification, he must be told 
(as he is here told) that the law, instead of delivering him from 
death or justifying him, condemns him todeath; nay, that its precepts, 
although holy and just and good in themselves and worthy of all 
respect and obedience, are nevertheless the occasion (the innocent 
occasion indeed) of the sinner’s guilt and ruin. ‘The fault lies in 
him; but still, if there had been no precepts to transgress and no 
penalty connected with transgression, then he would not have been 
a transgressor. It is on such ground that the apostle (chap. vil. 7— 
13) declares most explicitly, that “he had not known sin, except by 
the law;” that “sin, taking occasion by the law, wrought in him 
all manner of concupiscence;” that “without the law sin was dead,” 
i. é., the power of sin was ineflicacious; but still, that “the law is 
holy and just and good,” and all the fault lies in the transgressor. 
Chap. vii. 7, seq., is “indeed an ample commentary on the sentiment 
expressed in the verse before us. 

Admitting the truth of the apostle’s representation, it follows, that 
those who have no knowledge of law, i. 6.. no moral sense of any 
moral precept, cannot be transgressors. This is plainly and palpably 
the doctrine which he teaches; a doctrine which is sanctioned by 
the fundamental principles of our moral nature, and essential to the 
idea of right and wrong. In common cases, we never pronounce 
any man to be an offender against a moral law, unless he is an intel- 
ligent, rational, moral, free agent. Any one of these qualifications 
being found wantiag, we absolve him from guilt. And does not 
Paul the same? But this does not settle the question when men be- 
gin to be such agents; for plainly they may be moral and free agents 
before they can read the Scriptures. The question as to the time 
when sinning begins, in each individual case, can be settled only by 


— oe 


oe 
τ he “1 


ROMANS Iv. 16, 17 183 


= 


Omniscience. Why should we not be content to leave it with ‘the 
Judge of all the earth, WHO WILL DO RIGHT? 

The second γάρ in ver. 15 is placed at the head ofa reason or 
ground of the assertion immediately preceding ; which is, that the 
law is the occasion or instrument of condemnation. How does this 
appear? In this way, viz., because that where there is no law, there 
is no transgression. The γάρ here introduces, then, that which 
_ serves to confirm the expression immediately antecedent. 

' ~ (16) Because then the law does in fact never justify, but only 
condemn, it follows that if justification be at all bestowed on sinners, 
it must come in some other way than by law. Διὼ τοῦτο... χά- 
gt, on this account it was of faith, so that it must be of grace; %. e., 
___ the promise is through the medium of faith, so that it must be gratui- 
tous; there being no way left in which it could be bestowed on the 
- ground of merit. See the notes on verses 4,5 above. We must of 
course suppose ἡ ἐπαγγελία γίνεται to be implied before ἐκ σίστεως; 
in which case the mind reverts to the idea at the close of ver. 14. The 
we before κατὰ χάριν is doubtless to be taken in the ecbatic sense, 
ita ut, so that, indicating event not purpose. The reasoning then 
stands thus: ‘The promise was of faith as the condition, so that it 
must of course be gratuitous.’ Els +d sivas... . σπέρματι, in order 
that the promise might be sure to all the seed. - On any other ground 
than that of grace or gratuity, the promise could not be sure either 
' to Abraham or to his seed; for if it were to be fulfilled only on con- 
dition of entire obedience to the law, then would it never have a ful- 
filment, inasmuch as no mere man ever did or will exhibit perfect 
obedience. διὰ τοῦτο in this verse extends to the whole of the rea- 
soning which precedes, and which goes to show that justification or 
the promises of pardon and acceptance must be on gratuitous, and 
not on meritorious grounds. 

Οὐ τῷ . . . . ᾿Αβραάμ, not only to him who is under the law, but to 
him who is of the faith of Abraham; i. e., the promise is given on 
gratuitous grounds in order that it may not fail of being carried into 
execution, and that the blessings which it proffers may be bestowed 
on both Jew and Greek, that is, on all men without distinction, on 
all τοῖς στοιχοῦσι τοῖς ἴχνεσι τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίῳ πίστεως τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν 
᾿Αβραάμ. The reader should note, that μόνον belongs to οὐ τῷ, not te 
ἐχ τοῦ νόμου. 


᾿ (17) This last idea, viz., that Abraham is the spiritual father of 


a he teil oss 7 


PE ee λα 


ee ae Mee 


184 ROMANS Iv. 17. 


both Jews and Gentiles, the apostle now takes occasion farther to il- 
lustrate and confirm, by a reference to the Jewish Scriptures. Ὅς 
ἐστι... .. τέθεικά σε, who ws the father of us all; (as tt is written: 
A father of many nations have I made thee.) 'Τέθεικά σε is the Sep-~ 
tuagint rendering of 7903, the Hebrew 12 frequently meaning to 
put, place, or constitute ; in which meaning it is frequently followed 
by the Septuagint and New Testament, by the use of τίθημι. In 
respect to the original in Gen. xvii. 5, the only question is, whether 
the passage there means any thing more than that the Literal poste- 
rity of Abraham should be very numerous. Tholuck and many 
commentators so construe it; but it seems clear to me, that the 
apostle puts a different interpretation upon it, and that he viewed it 
as having reference to a spiritual seed. That such was his opinion, 
is made quite clear by comparing Gal. iii. 7. Rom. ii. 28, 29. iv. 11, 
12, 16,18. The embarrassment as to the interpretation of Gen. 
xvii. 1—8, seems to arise principally from the fact, that promises of 
both a temporal and spiritual nature are there made. <A double 
paternity (so to speak) is assigned to Abraham; many nations are to 
descend from him literally ; his literal seed are to possess the land of 
Canaan. But he is also to become the spiritual father of ‘ many 
nations,’ (7. ¢., an eminent pattern or exemplar in regard to faith, and 
justification by it, see verse 12 above), and in him are ‘al: the 
families of the earth to be blessed,’ Gen. xii. 3. How can it be 
satisfactorily shown, that both a natural and spiritual seed were not 
promised to Abraham? Or what should hinder us from supposing 
that both temporal and spiritual blessings were promised to him and 
his seed? Reiche, as usual, resorts to mere accommodation here. 
What force this could have on Jewish minds prejudiced against 
Paul’s views of the gospel, it would be difficult to tell. 

Such a father he was χατέναντι οὗ. . . . Θεοῦ, in the sight of God, 
whom he confided in or believed, Κατέναντι is equiy alent to the He- 
brew 723, 7339, "BBD, V2, in the sight of, in the view of, before. 
The fitiracit: is this: ‘ Abraham is the father of many nations, in 
the sight of that God in whom he trusted, or whose word he be- 
lieved;’ 7. ¢., God views him and has constituted him the spiritual 
father of many nations. The construction of the verse is difficult, 
at first view, and has given rise to many critical doubts. I regard 
the real sense of it as being the same, as if the arrangement in Greek 
were thus: Κατέναντι Θεοῦ οὗ [ = ᾧ] ἐπίστευσε. The οὗ is to be con- 
sidered as a case of attraction, as grammarians say. See instances 


ΤΑ ΡῚ 


i a 


: 
Γ 
| 
7 


. 


ROMANS IV. 17. 185 3 


of this nature in John ii. 22. Mark vii. 13. Luke i. 20. Acts vii. 
17, 45. 1 Pet. iv. 11. John xv. 20, &. ; but in all these cases, the 
noun precedes the pronoun which ἀπ ονοὸ to it. Hxamples, how- 
ever, of the like nature with the present, are the following, viz., 
Mark vi. 16, ὃν ἐγὼ ἀνακεφάλισω ᾿Ιωάννην, οὗτός ἐστι" Acts xxi. 16. 
ἄγοντες παρ᾿ ᾧ ἕενισθῶμεν Μνάσων" Rout. vi. 17, εἰς ὃν παρωδόθητε τύπον 
διδωχῆς" in which examples, indeed, the noun conforms to the pro- 
noun as to its case; but this makes no important difference, inas- 
‘much as the conformity may be of either kind, 2. 6.7 of the noun to 
the pronoun, or the pronoun.to the noun; see New Test. Gramm. 
§ 113. 2, 3. The older grammarians limited attraction to cases 
where the verb governs the Acc.; but this is a manifest error, and 
is now generally abandoned. If we regard οὗ ἐπήστευσε as a circum- 
stance throw in, and to be mentally included in a parenthesis, the 
difficulty of the sentence will be removed. ‘The present construction 
is somewhat anomalous as to the order of words; for the usual order 
would be thus: Κατέναντ, Θεοῦ οὗ ἐπίστευσε x. τ. A. 

Τοῦ ζωοποιοῦντος. . . . ὄντα, wha giveth life to the dead, and calleth 
the things which are not, as if they were. Another contested pas- 
sage. ‘To express the idea of divine, almighty power, is plainly the 
object of it. This it does by asserting that God raises the dead, 
and exercises creative and controlling power. In regard to τοῦ 
ζωοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκρούς, it may mean generally, that God has the 
power to raise the dead, and that he exercises it; or it may have a 
special reference to God’s promises to raise up a numerous progeny 
from Abraham, who was dead as to the power of procreation; comp. 
Heb. xi. 17—19, and verse 19 below. In either case the meaning 
is good. In the first it is more energetic: in the second, more ap- 
propriate to the special object of the writer. 

Καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ tyre ὡς ὄντα is Hebraistic in its manner. Καλέω is 
sometimes employed like the Hebrew SP, 7. ¢., to designate the idea 
of commanding a thing to be or exist, which did not before exist ; 
é. 5.) Is. xli. 4. xlviii. 18; comp. 2 Kings viii. 1. Isaiah xxii. 12. 
Comp. also 2 Mace. vil. 28, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὼ ὁ Θεύς, which 
resembles in sense the phrase before us; also Philo de Creat. p. 728, 
τὰ μὴ ὄντα ἐχάλεσεν εἰς τὸ εἶναι. The reference in the mind of the writer, 
when he used the phrase before us, no doubt was to Gen. 1. 3, seq. 
The calling of things that are not, is to command that they shall 
exist, in order to fulfil the purposes which the Creator has in view 
by bringing them into existence. ‘This latter circumstance seems to 


“ὙΦ ie 


180 ς ROMANS TV. 18. 


have been overlooked; and thus has arisen great perplexity among 
interpreters. ‘ How,’ it has been asked, ‘could God call into existence 
things that are not, as if they were? A seeming paradox, indeed, 
if literally interpreted; for things that already are, cannot be called 
into existence. After all, the meaning of the apostle is not simply 
bidding to exist (καλοῦντος), but also directing, disposing of, com- 
manding in any way and for any purpose, the things called. ‘God, 
says he, ‘can call into existence things that now have no existence, 
and employ them for his purposes, just as he directs and disposes of 
things that already exist; God calls τὰ μὴ ὄντα just as he does τὰ 
ὄντα; things that do not now exist, are at his disposal as really and 
truly as things that do exist, 7. 6.) they can be made to exist and to 
subserve his purpose, in the same manner as things do which now 
already exist.’ Is there any room for real difficulty in respect to 
such a meaning as this? If any one feels a difficulty still, he may 
solve the sentence in this simple way, viz., χαλοῦντος τὰ μὴ tyra ὡς 
[ἐκάλεσεν] ὄντα, t. 6.5) calling into existence (Gen. i. 2. Ps. xxxiii. 6) 
things that are not, as [he called into existence] things that are. 
The sense would be for substance the same. 


CHAP. IV. 18—25. 


THE apostle having thus shown that the doctrine of gratuitous justification by faith docs not 
at all impugn the Scriptures of the Old Testament, by appealing to the example of Abraham, 
and to the declarations of David; and having more particularly insisted on the justification of 
Abraham, previously to the covenant of circumcision, and independently of it; and this, in 
order that Abraham might be the spiritual father of all believers, both Jews and Gentiles; he 
now concludes the whole by an animated description and communication of Abraham’s faith, 
and by pointing out the happy consequences of imitating it to all who profess to be the disciples 
of Christ. First, Abraham hoped, when to all human appearance there was no ground of 
hope, that he might become the father of many nations through the birth of a son, ver. 18, 
His strong faith led him to overlook his own extreme old oge and that of Sarah, ver. 19; to 
trust with full confidence in the simple promise of God respecting a son, thus giving glory to 
God by reposing in him such an unlimited trust, and by being so fully persuaded that he 
would perform what he had promised, verses 20,21. On this account he was justified through 
his faith, ver. 22; nor was this fact recorded merely for his sake, but also for our sake, that 
we may be inspired with the hope of attaining to the like justification, provided we believe in 
the deolarations of him who raised up Jesus from the dead, and proposed him to the world as 
the object of saving belief, inasmuch as he died for our offences, and rose «gain in order that we 
might be justified. 


ROMANS Iv. 18—20. 187 


᾿ς (18) “Og παρ᾽ ἐλπίδα ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι ἐπίστευσεν, who against [all apparent] 
_ ground of hope, believed in hope that he should become the father, &c. 
The ὅς, x. τ. 4. here is co-ordinate with the ὅς, x. +. Ain ver.16. But 
though co-ordinate 4s to construction, it is not merely epexegetical, 
but adds some new declarations respecting the strength of Abraham’s 
faith. The expression rag ἐλπίδα ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι, is what the Greeks call 
ὀξύμωρον [oxymoron], 2. 6... a sharp, pointed saying, which to appear- 
ance exhibits a kind of contradiction; like the Latin spes insperata, 
wgnavia strenua, ἄς. The sag’ ἐλπίδα, beyond or against hope, in 
this case, refers to the circuinstances recounted in ver.19. For the 
like sense of σαρά, see Acts xviii. 13. 

Κατὰ rd εἰρημένον, viz.. in Gen. xv. ὅ.----Οοὕτως, so, viz., like the stars 
in respect to number, to which Abraham had just been pointed, 7. 6.» 
innumerable ; comp. Ps. cxlvii. 4 

(19) μὴ doderqouc, not being weak, i. e., being strong: the negative 
form of declaration being used, where an affirmative sense is meant. 
In like manner; “He confessed, and denied not, but confessed,” 
John i. 20. The Greeks call this mode of expression A:rérys, small- 
ness, slenderness, or μείωσις, diminution; because it seemingly dimin- 
_ ishes from the full strength of the positive form. Often however (as 
here) it is equivalent to the affirmative or positive form. The reason 
᾿ς of choosing the word ἀσθενήσας here seems to be, a reference to the 
' state of the patriarchal pair, who were weak in body. Their faith 
| was in an opposite condition, μὴ ἀσθενήσας. These words begin a third 
co-ordinate clause, both the others beginning with ὅς, as already noted. 
᾿ς Τῇ πίστει, Dative of condition, being strong in faith, or in respect 
| to faith, i. e., having strong confidence. 

τ Οὐ κατενόησε, he did not regard.—' Hd νενεκρωμένον, already dead, 1. ey 
inefficient with regard to procreation; comp. Heb. xi. 12. Gen. xvii. 
17. που, about (adv.) which sense it has when it is enclitic, as here; 
| ἑχατονταέτης πον, about 100 years of age.—Kai, nor, inasmuch as it 
follows οὐ in the preceding clause. So in Hebrew, ἢ following N? 


ae 


_ means 707, Heb. Gramm. ὃ 358. Note.—Ty νέκρωσιν τῆς μήτρας == τὴν 
μήτραν τὴν νενεχρωμένην. Comp. the age of Sarah (90) at this time, Gen. 
| ‘xvii. ya 

a (20) οὐ διεκρίθη, he did not doubt, did not hesitate; comp. Rom. xiv. 
> 23. James i. 6. ii. 4. Matt. xxi. 21. Mark xi. 23.—Rig δὲ τὴν ἐπαγγε- 
λίαν... .. ἀπιστίᾳ, still he did not doubt respecting the promise of 


᾿ God, through, or by reason of an unbelieving spirit. The dé here is 


188 ROMANS Iv. 21—24, 


adversative in respect to the preceding circumstances, and may be 
translated, still, but, or however. The Dat. of ἀσιστίῳ is construed 
agreeably to idiom; see New Test. Gramm. § 106. 5. 

"AAR ἐνεδυναμώθη τῇ πίστει, the opposite of the preceding expression, 
but he firmly and confidently believed, or he was confident through 
faith; τῇ πίστει, being the Dative of manner or means; see New Test. 
Gramm. ut supra. 

Δοὺς δόξαν τῷ Θεῷ, giving glory to God. The Hebrew Diy mim? 
7123 means, to show by our actions that we acknowledge any attri- 
bute of God; which is ascribing to him what belongs or is due to 
him. So here, Abraham, by the strength of his confidence, did in 
the highest manner ascribe to God omnipotence and veracity. Comp. 
John ix. 24. Josh. vii. 19. The meaning of the phrase as here 
employed by the writer, is given in the next verse. 

(21) Καὶ rangopognSels ὅτι x. τ. A., a Tepetition or epexegesis of what 
the preceding clause asserts. ‘ Being strong in faith” there, is 
equivalent to rAnzogogyJe/s here, which means, being fully persuaded ; 
comp. Heb. x. 22.—‘0 éxjyyedros, that which had been promised, or 
rather, what he had promised. This last rendering can be retained, 
because the Perf. pass. not unfrequently has an active sense, inas- 
much as it serves for the Perf. Middle as well as Passive, (New 
Testament Gramm. ὃ 61. 2.) Soin Acts xiii. 2, προσχέκλημαι, 1 have 
invited. Acts xvi. 10. 1 Pet. iv. 1. John ix. 22.—Kai ποιΐσω 
also to perform, καί in the sense of etiam, quoque, as it often is, ὃ, e., 
zai, intensive. : 

(22) Ad... . εἰς δικαιοσύνην, wherefore [his belief] was counted to 
him as righteousness; in other words, through his faith he was 
counted or treated as righteous, he was admitted to the divine favour. 
See on verse 5 above. The καί before ἐλογίσϑη I have interpreted as 
intensive. If otherwise taken, it may be solved thus: Wherefore, 
also, it was imputed, &e. 

(23, 24) Nor was this method of justification and acceptance 
limited to Abraham. The history of it is recorded as an example, 
for the encouragement and imitation of all others down to the latest 
period of time. Those who believe in him who raised up Jesus from 
the dead (comp. ver. 17 above), ὦ, e., those who believe in what God 
has done and said with respect to the Messiah, the only foundation 
of the sinner’s hope, will be justified through their faith, in like 
manner as Abraham was by his. 


—<€— = 


ROMANS Vide 189 


(25) παρεδόϑη, was given up, was delivered up, viz. to death, 
Matt. xxvi. 2.— Aid τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν, comp. Is. li. 12, 5, 6, 8. 
) Gal.i. 4. υὶ 20, Tit. ἡ. 14... 1 Pet. τ. 24. 

Διὰ τὴν δικαίΐωσιν ἡμῶν, on account of our justification, 1. e., our accept- 
ance with God. Christ rose from the dead, in order that this great 
and glorious work might be completed. The primary object of his 
death is here stated as being expiatory, i. 6.) as having a special in- 
fluence on that part of justification which has respect to remitting 
the penalty of the divine law. But as justification, in its ful/ sense, 
comprehends not only forgiveness, but the accepting and treating of 
any one as righteous, it implies of course the advancement of the 
pardoned sinner toa state of glory. The resurrection of Christ was 
connected with this; for if “ Christ be not risen, then our faith is 
_ vain.” His resurrection was preparatory to his receiving the king- 
_ dom given him of the Father, and thus was necessary in order to 
complete the redemption of those who believe in him. 

Reiche maintains, that the whole work of Christ, viz., his active 
and passive obedience, is to be considered as one ; and this in sucha 
sense, that we are at liberty to ascribe no more efficacy to his death 
than to any of the actions of his life. Of course he disallows the idea 
of a vicarious sacrifice, im any proper sense of these words; and he 
maintains that God, for Christ’s sake and for some reason not stated 
by thesacred writers, forgives and accepts the sinner. But, although 
I fully concede that the incarnation and obedience of Christ consti- 
tute a part of his mediatorial work, and by no means exclude them 
from an important place in the great scheme of redemption, still I 
must regard it as a perfectly clear case, that the New Test. ascribes 
peculiar efficacy to the sufferings and death of Christ; and to my 
mind, the doctrine of the atonement or the vicarious sufferings and 
᾿ς death of Christ, is fundamental to the very essence of Christianity 
as distinguished from other systems of religion. 


ee ee eG 
' τ 


CHAP. V. 1---21. 


__ Tne apostle having thus shown, (a) That all men, Jews and Gentiles, are sinners; (Ὁ) That 
they are therefore under the condemning sentence of the divine law; (c) That the only 
ο΄ method of escape from the execution of this sentence, is by gratuitous pardon, ἡ 6., by justifi- 
. Cation obtained through the death of Christ; and (d) That all this is no new doctrine, but 


190 ROMANS V. 1. 


one inculcated in the old Testament both by declaration and example; he next proceeds, in 
chap. v., toexhibit the blessed fruits of this pardon or justification. (1) We have peace with 
God (with whom we were before in a state of enmity, being alienated from him, comp. vers. 
6—10), and we enjoy, through Christ, free access to a state of favour with God, and thus 
are led to rejoice in the hope of future glory, vers. 1, 2. (2) We are supported and com. 
forted in all our afflictions during the present life; nay, we may even rejoice in them as the 
instruments of spiritual good to us, vers. 3—5. (3) All this good is rendered certain, and the 
hope of it sure, by the fact that Christ, having died for us while in a state of enmity and aliena- 
tion, and having thus reconciled us to God, will not fail to carry on and complete the work 
which he has thus begun, vers. 6—10. (4) We may now therefore rejoice in God (who is as 
truly owr covenant God as he has been that of the Jews), on account of the reconciliation which 
Christ has effected, ver. 11. 

(5) This state of reconciliation or filial relation to God, is extended to ail men, i. 6., in some re- 
spects actually bestowed on all, and in others proffered to all, laid open for ail, rendered acces- 
sible to all, in like manner as the evils occasioned by the sin of our first ancestor have in some 
respects extended to all, and in others are liable to be incurred or suffered by all; yea, such is 
the greatiess of Christ’s redemption, that the blessings procured by his death far exceed the evils 
occasioned by the sin of Adam (vers. 12—19), they even exceed all the evils consequent upon the 
sins of men, who live under the light of revelation (vers. 20, 21). The certainty of salvation, thens 
under such a dispensation as this, would seem to be made quite evident. ' 

Such appears to me the sum of what is taught in chap. v. The difficulties atiending tae inter- 
pretation of this passage, I readily acknowledge, and have long and deeply felt. To the study 
of them I have devoted much more time, than to any other equal portion of the Holy Scriptures. 
I do not persuade myself, however, that I have succeeded in all respects with regard to the solu- 
tion of them; much less do I expect that what I shali propose will be satisfactory to the minds 
of all others. WhatI could do, I have done; if others succeed better, it will be matter of sin- 
cere joy tome. One thing I cannot help remarking here; which is, that any exegesis of vers. 12 
—21, which represents the contents as irrelevant to the tenor of the context both before and 
after these verses, must wear the air, of course, of being an improbable one. Never have I found 
more difficulty, however, than in satisfying myself of the relation which vers. 12—23 do in fact 
hold toward the context; and in particular how they bear upon the theme discussed in vers. 1 
—11. The result of all my investigations is given, as to substance, under No. 5 above. 

Tholuck states his result a little differently: ‘To render more conspicuous the fruits obtained 
by redemption, the apostle contrasts the state of mankind as a whole, and as being in the misery 
of their unredeemed, condition, with the state of mankind as a whole, in their happiness as par- 
takers of the benefits of redemption. By a striking parallel, he exhibits mankind in Adam the 
head and source of our race as sinful; and in Christ the head and source of it, asredeemed; and 
he so represents this, that redemption appears to be the greatest and most important occurrence 
which has taken place with regard to mankind—the central point of all spiritual life and all hap- 
piness.” (Comm. iiber Rom. p. 158. edit. 2). Whether this summary comes nearer than my 
own to the true exhibition of the contents of vers. 12—21; in particular, whether it harmonizes 
better with the context; I submit to the reader to decide, when he shall have carefully studied 
the whole. In the mean time, I acknowledge with gratitude the important aid that I have re- 
ceived from the Commentary of the above named excellent writer. 

The reader will finda more detailed statement of the contents of vers. 12—19, at the com. 
mencement of the commentary on this passage, and before its several parts. 


1) οὖν, then, concessive and continuative. It does not here ex- 
b] b 


_ ROMANS Υ, 2, 3. 191 


press the force simply of syllogistic conclusion, but resumes and 

alludes to the preceding arguments and illustrations, and takes for 

granted the fact stated by δικαιωθέντες. ‘This last word has here pe- 

_ culiar reference to pardon of sin, and does not mean mundati a peceato, 

or beatificati, as some have construed it; for these things are further 
asserted in the sequel. 

"Ex πίστεως, 1. 6.) gratuitously, through belief instead of perfect obe- 

dience; see on chap. iv. 5 above. . 

- Ἑλ)ρήνην ἔχομεν, we have peace; here in opposition to a state of 

enmity to God, or a state of alienation from him; see verse 10. 

Several important MSS., A., C., D., 71., al., and some versions and 
_ fathers, read ἔχωμεν (Subj.); but Paul does not mean to say merely 
that we may have peace, but that we are in actual possession of it. 
b Διὰ τοῦ K. I. Χριστοῦ, viz.. by the reconciliation which he has 
_ effected, see verse 11. 

(2) δι᾽ οὗ καί, by whom also.—Tiy προσωγωγήν, access, as well as 
reconciliation; comp. Eph. ii. 18. iii. 12. We have obtained access 
εἰς τὴν χαρὶν ταύτην, 1. 6.) either to this state of favour or grace, in 
which we now stand or are; or, as Tholuck, Reiche, and some 
others: ‘We have obtained access [to God] by belief (τῇ πίστει) in 
that grace in which we continue.’ The former seems to be the most 
facile sense; the latter, most conformed to idiom. Mgoseywy% seems 
| to imply that God is the object of access ; so it is expressed in Eph. 
ΟΠ ui. 18. 1 Pet. i. 18, and implied (as here) in Eph. 11. 12. Besides, 
_ the object of belief is generally indicated by εἰς ; which would fayour 
) the view of Tholuck.—'Ecyjxaue, we have become possessed of, we 
) have obtained. As the Perf. is here employed (and not Pres. as 
: _ above), it would seem that the access here spoken of must refer to 
i | the pardoned sinner’s first access to God, after his forgiveness.— 
ἱἙστήκαμεν, we stand, the Perf. being cme in this verb, μρδωμδι: the 
Present has not a neuter sense. See N. Test. εἰ πρώ § 50. 3, 
') Note 2. : 
᾿ς κκαὶ καυχώμεϑα, and we rejoice; t. e. in addition to a state of 
peace with God and access to him, we are filled with joy, in the 
| hope of that glory which God will bestow. Θεοῦ is here Genitivus 
 auctoris. 

(8) οὐ μόνον δὲ, ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμεθα x. τ. r., and not only so, but we 
_ also rejoice, ὅθ. This is a formula of transition, or of enumerating 
_ particulars, answering to our numerical divisions in a discourse; 
comp. ver. 11. δέ continuative and discretive. The ellipsis after 


—- ae Ἣν 


ἘΝ 


αι “5... 


᾿ 


At OUEST ΚΤ Ύ ἈΠ ΤῸ ας ΔΜ ἘΠ 2 


g 
5 


192 ROMANS V. 4, 5. 


od μόνον δέ is plain; ὦ. 6.) ‘not only [do we rejoice in hope of future 
glory], but, &c. Gléckler contends earnestly, that there is another 
ellipsis after καυχώμεθα which he supplies by ἐπ᾽ ἐλσίδι x. τ. δ. from 
verse 2. Yet this is not only needless, but contrary to what idiom 
admits; for ἐν after xavydéouas not unfrequently stands before the 
object of the verb; e.g., in Rom. ii. 17. Gal. vi. 18, &e. The 
apostle does not mean to say, that the Christian exults in pain and 
sorrow as such; but that as a means of spiritual good he exults in 
them, and is enabled by divine grace to triumph over them. 

Eidéres, knowing, having assurance ; viz., from our relation to God, 
and from his gracious purposes toward us. Confidence in him 
gives assurance. 

"Orr... . κατεργάζεται, produces patience or perseverance. Neither 
of these virtues can be exercised without sufferings and trials. Pa- 
tience is steadfast and submissive endurance of evils. Afflictions are 
essential to the cultivation of this virtue. They are not, indeed, the 
direct and efficient cause of patience; but they are at least an oc- 
casion or instrumental cause. 

(4) δοκιμήν, trial or approbation. Either rendering is correct; 
for perseverance or patience in the enduring of afflictions makes 
thorough trial; and the same virtue secures approbation. ᾿ I prefer 
the second meaning, viz., approbation; because it more naturally 
connects itself with the ἐλσίς that follows. Comp. δοχιμάζω, which 
means fo try, and also to approve. 

᾿Ελπίδα, hope, which springs of course from the approbation be- 
stowed on patient endurance of suffering for virtue’s sake. 

(5) οὐ καταισχύνει, will not disappoint; as the sequel shows. So 
the Hebrew, via NX>, The δὲ before this clause and two others in 
verse 4, is continuative and discretive. 

“Ori ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ κ. τ. A. The jirst reason given why the 
Christian’s hope will not disappoint him, is that the love of God is 
diffused (ἐκκέχυται) in his heart or mind; and this, by that Holy 
Spirit which is imparted to him, i. e. by the gracious influence of — 
that Spirit who dwells in the hearts of believers; 1 Cor. vi. 19. iii. 
16. 2 Cor. vi. 16. 2 Cor. i. 22, where the spirit which is in the 
hearts of believers is called their ἀῤῥαβών, the pledge of their future 
happiness, the pledge that their salvation is secure. Compare also 
Eph. i. 13, 14, where the same sentiment is fully expressed. The — 
love of God here evidently means his love toward us; as verse 8 
plainly shows. His love shed abroad in the hearts of Christians 


ROMANS VY. 0. 193 


means, that a full and satisfactory conviction respecting his love is 
bestowed; and the manner of bestowing or giving such a sense of 
his love is here designated, viz., by the influence of the Holy Spirit 
imparted to Christians. 


U CHAP. V. 6— 10. 


VERSES 6-—10 constitute a kind of episode (if I may so speak), and contain an illustration 
and confirmation of the sentiment expressed in ver. 5, viz., that the Christian’s hope will not 
disappoint him. To show that this is truly the case, the writer goes on to produce an illustra. 
tion, which exhibits an argument of the kind called a majori ad minus; i.e., ‘if Christ has 
already done the greater thing for you, viz., reconciled you to God, when you were in your 
sinful state, how much more will he complete the work, the greatest and most difficult part of 
which has already been accomplished Ὁ 

In this view the passage before us seems to be more direct, in respect to the perseverance of 
the saints, than almost any other passage in the Seriptures which I can find. The sentiment 
here is not dependent on the form of a particular expression (as it appears to be in some other 
passages); but it is fundamentally connected with the very nature of the argument. 


(6) "Ἔτι γὰρ Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν, a singular metathesis or transposition 
of the particle ἔτι, which belongs to ὄντων and plainly qualifies it. On 
account of this unusual location of ἔτι, suspicions of its genuineness 
would seem to have arisen, and the variety of readings is here con- 
siderable; 6. g., εἴγε, B., Syr., Erp., Copt.; εἰ γὰρ, Isid., Pelus., August. ; 
εἴ τι, Β'., G.; εἰς τί, (ut quid), Ital., Vulg., Iren., Ambros., Pelag. All 
these varieties probably originated either from the unusual location 
of ἔτσι, as before mentioned, or else from an apprehension that ἐτὶ in 
ver. 8 rendered it unnecessary or improbable here. In like manner 
many MSS. and Versions have an ér: after ἀσθενῶν here; which Gries- 
bach and Koppe admit into the text, but Knapp and Vater reject. 
It probably arose from some of the lections, which begun with this 
verse, and transposed the ἐσὶ, for convenience’ sake in reading, as it 
would not appear seemly at the beginning of a lection. The trans- 
position seems to be designed for the sake of giving emphasis to é7; 


ἱ 4 comp. Matt. xii. 46. xvii. 5. Mark v. 35. xii. 6, and specially Heb. ix. 


6, ἐσ; τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς ἐχούσης στάσιν, Where ér1 belongs to ἐχούσης.----Τάρ 
confirmantis here, ὁ, 6.7 stands before a paragraph which assigns a 
cause or ground of the assertion in the preceding sentence, viz., that 
the hope of the Christian would not disappoint him. 
"Ἔτι ὄντων ἡμῶν, while we were yet, or we yet being.— Ασθενῶν, literally 
N 


194 ROMANS V. 6. 


destitute af strength; here, as generally expounded, in a moral sense, 
i. e., destitute of moral vigour, without holy energy, in a state of 
moral indisposition or infirmity. So Prov. xxiv. 16, οἱ ἀσεβεῖς ἀσϑενή- 
σουσιν ἐν κακοῖς, the ungodly are weak in their evil ways, 7. ¢., they are 
morally weak, for physical strength and resolution they lack not. 
Various modifications of the word ἀσθένεια may be found in Gal. iv. 9. 
Heb. iv. 15. v. 2. vii. 18. In Heb. iv. 15, the nature of the appeal 
seems to show, that the writer supposes Jesus himself to have pos- 
sessed ἀσθένεια like our own; but he takes care to add, χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας; 
so that while he had the susceptibility of being tempted and tried 
(τεπειρασμένον κατὰ πάντα καθ᾿ ὁμοιότητα) in all respects as we are, which 
seems to be the ἀσθένεια here characterised, he still remained “ holy, 
harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.” It is not susceptibility 
of being tempted, then, which makes any one a sinner. However, 
in our text, ἀσθενῶν seems to be used in a more emphatic sense than in 
Heb. iv. 15. v. 2; for it is immediately exchanged for ἀσεξῶν, and in 
verse 8 for ἁμαρτωλῶν. ‘This shows that actual development of char- 
acter by some kind of voluntary action is meant, and not merely 
vitiositas or peccabilitas ; for ἀσεξζής and ἁμαρτωλός are not applied to 
mark these qualities, but to mark character that is developed. 

After all, however, the doubt forces itself on my mind in recon- 
sidering this passage, whether ἀσθενῶν does not here characterise 
weakness or inability of the sinner as to saving himself, having once 
come under the condemning sentence of the law. In Heb. vii. 18, 
the law is asserted to be ἀσθενής, because it can afford no help to the 
sinner who is condemned by it. What now if we suppose the 
apostle to mean here, that ‘when we were under the curse, and 
unable to save ourselves, Christ then interposed?’ The sense is 
surely good, and the apparent tautology made by ἀσεβῶν, when it is 
construed in the usual way, is avoided. 

Κατὰ καιρόν, in due time, at an appointed or set time, viz., that 
fixed upon in the counsels of God. Comp. Sept. in Job v. 26. Isa. 
Ix. 22; comp. also Luke xxi. 24, 8. Heb. xi. 11. Comp. τὸ πλήρωμα 
τοῦ χρόνου in Gal, iv. 4. 

‘Yate ἀσεβῶν, 1. 6.,) ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν [ἡμῶν], for [ us | who are ungodly. 
It is plain that ἀσεβῶν here characterises’ the same class of persons 
who were called ἀσθενῶν in the preceding clause. It means impious, 
those who do not reverence or fear God.—'Yaig, for, on account of, 
instead of, i. 6.5) in our room or stead.—So the comparison in the next 
verse, where dying ὑπὲρ ἀγαθοῦ and ὑσὲρ δικαίου is mentioned, obliges 


ROMANS VY. 7. 195 


us to interpret this. Even Riickert concedes that the meaning here 
must .be loco nostro, vice nostrd. Reiche admits that this is the 
symbolical costume of the language; but that the idea of vicarious 
sacrifice is to be objectively admitted, he deems to be entirely out of 
question. But what is this, except to make a new gospel, according 
to our conception of what it-ought to be? 

(7) Γάρ tllustrantis; for the sequel is designed to illustrate the 
great benevolence which the death of Christ displayed, and which 
_is proposed to our view in verses 5, 6. δικαίου is here used in dis- 
: tinction from ἀγαθοῦ. Often these words are synonymous ; yet they 
: are capable of distinct use, and in classic usage they are not unfre- 
quently distinguished from each other. EF. g., Cicero: “ Recte jus- 
tum virum, bonum non facilé reperiemus;” de Offic. III. 15. ‘Again: 
“ Jupiter Optimus dictus est, id est, benejicentissimus.” So in the 
Talmud (Pirge Abhoth, 5, 10) itis said: “There are four kinds of 
men; (1) Those who say: What is mine is mine, and what is thine 
is thine; these are the middling men. (2) Those who say; What 
is mine is thine, and what is thine is mine; these are the common 
people. (3) Those who say; What is mine is thine, and what is 
thine is thine; these are the 5°"DM, ἡ, 6.) ἀγαθοί. (4) Those who 
say: What is mine is mine, and what is thine is mine; these are the 
nsw.” So (by the Seventy) ὙΠ is usually distinguished from 
PIS ; inasmuch as the former is sually rendered ὅσιος, while the 
latter is translated by δίκαιος. δίκαιος may be used (and not un- 
frequently is used) to de ignate a person who is innocent merely; so 
in the Septuagint, Ex. xxiii. 7. Gen. xviii. 23, seq. So in the New 
Testament, Matt. xxvii. 9,24. It corresponds also to the Hebrew 
‘3, Prov. : 11. vi. 17. Joel iii. 19. In using δίκαιος, therefore, as 
designating a character somewhat different from ἀγαθός and inferior 
to it, the apostle has not varied from sacred and classic usage. 
Δίκαιος clearly means here, one who is just in the common sense of. 
the word, one who is free from crimes cognizable by law, one who 
does not defraud, §c. For such an one, the apostle says, it would 
be rare to find any person willing to volunteer the sacrifice of his 

life. | 
Although for the ἀγαθός, 4. e., the benevolent or rather the beneficent 
man, (the TDM), some one perhaps might venture even to lay down his 
life. ‘This has in fact not unfrequently been done. ‘The difference 
between the readiness of men to hazard their-lives for a man of 
peculiar and overflowing benevolence of heart, and for ἃ man who 


ἀθ0 ROMANS V. 8, 9. 


merely pays a nice regard to meum and tuum, is very plain to every 
observer who has a feeling heart. Reiche and Tholuck suppose 
ἀγαθος here to designate a kind benefactor, in distinction from a 
simple dixasoc. To this I see no objection; for it makes the contrast 
between δίκαιος and ἀγαθός the more striking; and is well founded 
in the nature of the idiom. I may add, that the sequel is rendered 
the more striking by it. Besides, the use of the article here before 
ἀγαθοῦ shows that a specific benefactor is thought of by the writer. 
The article is here = to the pronominal adjective his. 

The γάρ in this second clause is a matter of some difficulty, which 
critics have generally passed over. It does not appear what the cor- 
responding sentiment is, for which it here would seem to assign a 
ground orreason. It may there (as usual in such cases) be taken as 
affirmative (ja, allerdings, Passow), and we might translate thus: 
Perhaps, indeed, for the benefactor, &c. I have rendered it although 
in the version; not because γάρ of itself means although, but because 
the relation of the sentiment demands such a rendering, in order to 
make the sense explicit tous. The xa/ before τολμᾷ, Tholuck explains 
as giving this verb an intensive meaning. It undoubtedly is χαΐ in- 
tensivum; but standing before such a connection as τολμᾷ ἀποθανεῖν, it 
may be joined with either verb, as the sense requires. Here the 
better sense seems to be given by joining καί with arodave—would 
venture even to die. What he had-just said was: ‘ Scarcely will any 
one die for a just man ;” now he says: ‘Still it may be, that some 
one will venture even to die for a benefactor. Will even venture 
does not put the emphasis in the right place. 

(8) Yet the grace of the gospel has far surpassed any exhibition 
of human benevolence. Συνίστημι, commends, sets forth, displays,— 
᾿Αγάπην, benevolence, hind feeling, 0N) compassionate kindness.— 
‘Tre ἡμῶν, in our stead, or on our account. In either way of ren- 
dering tie sense here must be, that the death of Christ saved us from 
that which we as ἁμαρτωλοί deserved. ‘Awagrwdo/ means those who err 
in heart and life. 

(9) Πολλῷ οὖν... ἀπὺ τῆς ὀργῆς, much more, then, being justified, 
i. é., acquitted, pardoned as to our past offences, by his blood, 1. e., the 
sufferings and death of Christ, shall we be saved by him from [future] 
indignation. In other words: ‘If Christ by his death has accom- 
plished our reconciliation, while we were in a state of enmity; a for- 
tiori we may expect that the great work, thus begun and accomplished 
as to the most difficult part, will be completed.” That αἱματι αὐτοῦ 


Ve ῃν. 


; 197 
means the same thing as the death of Christ, ¢.¢., that it here di- 
rectly refers to the preceding ἀπέθανε, does not admit of any reasonable 
doubt. 

(10) A repetition of the same general ideas, in which the senti- 
ment of the whole is compressed and rendered prominent. Td con- 
firmantis, in relation to the preceding assertion. Θανάτου x. τ. 2. here 
corresponds to τῶ αἵματι αὐτοῦ in the preceding verse.— Ey τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ, 
the antithesis of ϑανάτου αὐτοῦ. Meaning: ‘If we were reconciled to 


ROMANS V. 10, 11. 


God, when enemies, by a dying Saviour; a fortiori shall we, when 


thus reconciled, attain salvation through a living one;’ ὦ. e., if Christ 
in his humble and suffering state reconciled us to God, much more 
in his exalted and glorified state (ἐν τῷ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ) will he complete 
the work thus begun; comp. Rom. iv.21, where is the same sentiment. 
Ἐν before ζωῇ is evidently used in a different sense from διά before 
Savarov. δε 

The scriptural view of reconciliation is, that the offending party 
becomes reconciled to the other. The verb χαταλλάσσω properly 
means to change, exchange ; and it is here employed to designate the 
change of the sinner’s mind, who was “ at enmity with God,” to that 
state in which he comes to love and reverence him. 

(11) οὐ μόνον δὲ, ἀλλὰ καὶ xr. λ., and not only [do we rejoice in 
afflictions, verse 3, as tending to produce a hope of glory which the 


death of Christ has rendered sure and certain], but we rejoice, καυ- 


χώμενοί [ἐσμεν] in God, viz., as our God, our covenant God, our su- 
preme and eternal joy; comp. Rev. xxi. 3. Heb. viii. 10. Zech. viii. 
8. Jer. iv. 2; also John viii. 41, 54. Rom. 11. 17, which last passage 
shows the claims of the Jews in respect to their covenant relation 
with God. The apostle means to intimate in our text, that all which 
the Jews boasted of, is in reality secured to Christians. The use of 
καυχώμενοι here, instead of a proper verb as in verse 3, is substantially 
Hebraistic ; for in Hebrew the changing of the construction from a 
verb to a participle, and vice versa, is very common. 

The verse before us ,is a sununary or consummation of all the 
grounds of rejoicing; for to rejoice in God as our God, expresses 
the consummation of all the Christian’s happiness. In respect to 
form or mode of expression, it constitutes a diverse head ; and it is 
one which in fact is really diverse in this respect, viz., that it is more 
generic than the preceding declarations. The phrases in verses 1, 3, 
and 11, viz., καυχώμεθα----οὐ μόνον δὲ ἀλλὰ καὶ----οὐ μόνον δὲ ἀλλὰ xai— 
present the natural division of the apostle’s discourse, and correspond 


198 ROMANS Y. 12, 


to our Ist, 2nd, 3rd, in English. Some critics, however, think that 
verse 11 refers merely to the καταλλαγέντες owlnosucda of the preced- 
ing verse, and construe thus: ‘ But we are not only reconciled and 
saved, but also rejoice, &c. So Reiche. The sense is good; but 
the method above stated seems to me, on the whole, to be 
preferable. 

Τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἐλάθομεν receives its form from the expression in 
verse 10, χατηλλάγημεν xr. A The word means reconciliation ; and 
such is the sense in which our English translators here used the 
word atonement (quasi at-one-ment). 


CHAP. VY. 12—19. 


TuAT this is one of: the most difficult passages in all the New Testament, will be conceded, I 
believe, by all sober and reflecting critics. I have bestowed repeated and long-continued efforts 
upon the study of it; but not with results as satisfactory to my own mind as in some other cases, 
I do not speak of my efforts as affording even a presumptive proof that I have at last attained to 
a right understanding of the passage ; but only to show that I have felt, and in some measure, 
as I trust, rightly estimated, the difficulties attendant upon the nature of an undertaking to ex- 
plain it, and have not neglected any efforts within my power to overcome them. 

’ The main design of the passage seems, indeed, to be plain. It lies, one may say, upon the very 
face of it. It is this, viz., to impress on our minds the certainty of salvation through redeeming 
blood, and to exalt our views respecting the yreatness of the blessings which Christ has procured 
for us, by a comparison of them with the evil consequences which ensued upon the fall of our first 
ancestor, and by showing that the blessings in question not only extend to the removal of those 
evils, but even far beyond this; so that the grace of the gospel has not only abounded but super- 
abounded. These objects appear also to be united with the intention, to exhibit the extent to which 
the blessings in question are actually diffused or proffered. 

. The intelligent and discerning reader can hardly fail to perceive the general object, as thus 
stated. But the detail is attended with difficulties; and these have been greatly augmented on 
aecount of the numerous theories formed by speculative minds, relative to the various topics on 
which the paragraph before us has been supposed to touch. κυ 

A synopsis of what is particularly taught in verses 12—19, may be comprised in the following 
particulars; viz., (7) Sin entered into the world [commenced] by the offence of Adam; and death 
i. ¢., misery or loss of happiness, came in as the necessary result of it. In like manner death came 
upon all men, because that all have sinned, verse 12. 

(Ὁ) It is indeed true, that all men have been subjected to death; for that even those who did 
not live under the light of revelation, nor were made acquainted with any express commands of 
God, have been so, is proved from the fact, that all those who lived between Adam and Moses 
were sinners, and therefore lay under sentence of death, verses 13, 14. 

(c) Adam, who was the occasion of introducing sin into the world, and of bringing sin and 
death upon all men, may be considered as a τύπον of Christ, in respect to the influence which 


ΜΡ ΗΝ Ἢ ΨΥ ee 


ΕΝ, “Ὁ 


ΡΝ ΛΠ 


ROMANS V. 12. 199 


he has had on others ; (but not as to the kind of influence, or as to the degree of it, for here is a 
wide diversity ;) ver. 14, last clause. 

(a) That the hind and degree of influence which Adam had on all men is not like that which 
Christ has on them, or that Adam when regarded as a τύπος of Christ is not to be so regarded in 
these respects, is plain, (1) As to the KIND of influence; from the fact that Adam occasioned the 
condemnation of all men, but Christ delivers mankind from condemnation, and bestows eternal 
happiness on them, ver. 15. (2) ds to the DEGREE of influence; because the condemnation of 
which Adam was the occasion has respect only to one offence, while the pardon which Christ 
procured extends to many offences, ver. 16. Hence (3) If death reigned over men because of one 
offence, much more shall they reign in life who through Christ receive pardon for many offences 
and a title to future blessedness, ver. 17. In other words; if evils through one offence spread so 
wide, then blessings through the pardon of many offences more than counterbalance them. 


Having thus guarded his readers against extending the idea of τύπος to points of which it can- 
not properly be predicated ; and having shown that the influence of Christ on the human race is 
exactly the reverse of that of Adam, in respect to its kind or nature, and also that it far sur- 
passes it in degree; the apostle now comes to the consideration of the real points of similitude 
between Adam and Christ, viz., the universality or extent of influence as exerted through the act 
of one, i. e., by what one individual has done, This he states as follows. 


(c) As the consequences of Adam’s sin were extended to all men, so the consequences of Christ’s 
obedience [viz. unto death] are extended to all; ὦ, 6., Jews and Gentiles may all come on an 


equal footing into the kingdom of Christ, or the blessings which the gospel proffers are in some 


respects actually bestowed on all men without exception, andin others made equally accessible 
to all men, and to all on the same terms or conditions ; vers. 18,19. All this was accomplished 
respectively by the act of one individual. 


Such appear to be the principal contents of this contested and celebrated passage. The sequel 


_ will present many specific and particular illustrations, which cannot properly find a place in a 


general synopsis such as I have now endeavoured to give. 


It may be a matter of interest to the reader, to be made acquainted with some other summaries 
of the doctrine contained in the passage before us, by writers of distinction who differ in theo- 
logical sentiment. Koppe: “ That Jesus Christ alone is the author of that divine grace by which 
we return to God, and of that eternal happiness which is connected with it. — This sentiment 
the apostle does not so much establish in the way of acute argument, as illustrate in a kind of 
popular way; making use for this purpose of the example and similitude of Adam, who, ina 
certain sense, may be called and regarded as the sole author of sin, and of the punishments 
to be feared on account of sin: nor is any thing more to be sought for, in the whole passage, 
than a kind of slight similitude between Adam and Christ.” This is making light work of the 
whole matter. Meyer: ‘‘ The apostle intends toshow in avery lucid manner, that the beneficent 
consequences of redemption are much more widely extended than the mischief occasioned by 
Adam’s offence ;” Paul, I.ehrbeg. p. 376. This seems to be correct, so far as it goes. But thus 
much is only one of the objects designed. To show the certainty of salvation and exceedingly 
to magnify the riches of gospel-grace, is also designed. Barnes: ‘‘ Wide as the evil is which was 
brought upon the human race by Adam, equally wide is the blessing of sins forgiven through 
Christ ;” p. 376. This again is the part only of what the apostle has accomplished. Flatt: “[{The 
object of the apostle is,] to explain the manner of redemption, and in particular so far to explain 
it as it has been accomplished by one, ὃ, 6., Jesus Christ.” Altogether too limited a view. Riick- 
ert in his recent commentary ; [The apostle designs] “to comprise the whole doctrine of sin and 
redemption in one grand summary.” Too general and indefinite. Tholuck’s view the reader 
will find above at the head of chap. v. 


It seems to be plain, that the particular object of the writer is developed in vers. 15—17, and 20, 
21; andfrom these his object would appear mainly to be (as before stated,) ‘to impress our 
minds with the certainty of salvation which is by grace, and to magnify the riches of that grace which 
is bestowed through Jesus Christ.’ This the writer undertakes to accomplish by acomparison of 
tie cyils removed by Christ and the blessings bestowed, with the mischiefs occasicned by the fall 


200 ROMANS v. 12. 


of our first parents. Ihave no doubt, moreover, that inasmuch as all men have been injured by 
the fall, so it isa merciful and proper and benevolent arrangement on the part of God, that the 
blessings procured by Christ should be bestowed on all, or at least proffered to all; and in this way 
the fact that he is the God of the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and that salvation is and ought to be 
accessible to the former as well as to the latter—a truth for which Paul so often and earnestly 
contends (see iii. 29—31. iy. 1—25)—is more fully illustrated and more satisfactorily and trium- 
phantly evinced. We have then, according to this view of the matter, three objects to be accom- 
plished by vers. 12—21,; viz., to display and more fully evince the CERTAINTY, the GREATNESS, and 
the EXTENSIVE NATURE Of that salvation which Christ wrought. In this general statement Riickert 
agrees, in his recent Commentary. 


(12) Διὰ τοῦτο, wherefore, therefore. So it is usually translated, 
viz., as il/ative, and as showing that what follows is a consequence or 
deduction from what has gone before. But in what sense can this 
be here asserted? How are the sentiments in the sequel here de- 
duced from that which precedes them ὃ 

This is a question that has greatly perplexed critics and commen- 
tators. Some have converted the words διὰ τοῦτο, into amere formula 
of transition ; e. g., Schleusner makes them so here ; and Wahl re- 
presents διὰ τοῦτο as having such asense in Matt. xiii. 52. If this 
were admissible, these words might then be rendered, moreover, fur- 
ther. But such a meaning cannot be supported by reasoning which 
is strictly philological. 

Schott understands διὰ τοῦτο, in his able Essay on Rom. vy. 12— 
14 (Opuse. vol.i. p. 318. seq. ) as indicating an occasion, in reference 
to what had already been said, of making the remarks which follow. 
But Tholuck, Reiche, Gléckler, and many others, represent διὰ 
τοῦτο here as illative; although none of them seem to me to have 
satisfactorily shown how the sequel is a deduction from what precedes. 
ΑἹ least no writer with whom I am acquainted, seems to have done 
this, so as to render clear the point how these words are illative here 
in a logical sense. 

That διὰ τοῦτο is not always employed in an iillative sense, as 
Reiche and others assert, will appear from a particular examination 
of Matt. xiii. 52. Mark xii, 24, Rom. xiii. 6; to which other doubt- 
ful passages might be added. On the whole, however, a minute and 
extensive review of this subject has brought me to the conviction, 
that διὰ τοῦτο here is employed in a kind of illative sense, although 


ROMANS V. 12. 201 


not in.one which is strictiy of logical illation. Ido not now view it as 
having relation in particular to ver. 11, but to what precedes this, 
and particularly to the great points brought to view and established 
from chap. iii. 28 to ver. 11, viz., the extent, the greatness, and the 
certainty of salvation by Christ. These being shown, the apostle 
now says, that he may conclude from them that what he is going to 
state is true and worthy of reception. What he does state we have 
seen to be these very points, with an illustration of them by anew 
and striking comparison which he introduces. The comparison, be- 
yond all doubt, is not the main object of the writer; it merely 
subserves his main design, viz., the confirmation and illustration of 
the great points already stated. 

The course of thought and the connection of it seems to me to be 
this: ‘The extent, the greatness, the certainty of salvation, I have 


now exhibited to you, therefore (διὰ τοῦτο) it is worthy of all recep- 


tion, or therefore it is true, that as by one man’s sin, &c. Instead of 
repeating a simple deduction, the apostle makes out one accompanied 
by illustrations and remarks which serve very much to strengthen 
the impression that he intends to make. He who fully recognizes 
this last circumstance, will probably be relieved in his mind from the 
main part of the difficulty occasioned by the use of διὰ τοῦτο, in this 
connection. 

On any other ground than this, or what is substantially like to 
this, 1 do not see how the appropriateness of διὰ τοῦτο can be made 
out. If we suppose that the main point in vers. 12—?21, is to exhi- 
bit the relation of Adam to us, or the influence of his offence upon 
us, then it is quite impossible to make out in reality and propriety an 
illative sense of διὰ τοῦτο here. In what part of the epistle which 
precedes, has the apostle discussed the subject of Adam’s offence or 
influence? Surely inno part. It is men’s own personal sins which he 
has thus far represented as the cause of their guilt and danger before 
God. How then must his reasoning stand, on the ground which I 
am opposing? Simply thus; ‘ All men have brought themselves 
under the curse of the law by their sins. God is the common father 
of Jews and Gentiles, and has the same designs of pardoning mercy 
towards both, and has promised to bestow it; the death of Christ has 
assured the promised salvation; the riches of his grace are exceed- 
ingly great and wonderful; THEREFORE (διὰ τοῦτο) as Adam by one 


offence ruined all men, so Christ by his obedience has procured salva~ 


tion, for all” ‘That this is a fair statement of the course of thought 


202 ROMANS V. 12. 


will not be denied by any; and the last particular must be admitted 
by those whom I am now opposing. But how the logical illation is 
to be made out by them, if we subjoin the last particular in its pre- 
sent shape is (after all that has often, and recently with great confi- 
dence been uttered in relation to this subject, as though it did not 
present the least difficulty,) a problem that my powers sof reasoning 
are not adequate to solve. 
We must change the shape, then, of the last member of this 
series of propositions, and say: ‘therefore, 1. e., because of the argu- 
ments produced and reasons already given to show the extent, the 
greatness, and the certainty of salvation by Christ—therefore, it is 
true, that, &c.; or therefore we must admit, that as Adam intro- 
duced sin and misery into the world in such a way that they became 
universal, and certain, and abounding, so Christ has become the 
author of salvation universal, certain, and abounding, or great.’ 
The main object of course is the latter one, and it is for the very 
purpose of heightening the intensity of the picture given of this, 
that the antithesis and similitude of Adam’s case is introduced. 

Ὥσπερ, as, of course introduces a comparison; ὥσπερ standing 
before the protasis, which seems to extend through the verse. But 
where is the apodosis? ‘The form of the sentence completed would 
be: Ὥσπερ x τ. A.—olrws καὶ x 7.2%. But the latter appears to be 
here wanting. This is supplied, however, in different ways, or is 
differently constructed, by different critics. 

(a) Διὰ τοῦτο [τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν], ὥσπερ δὶ ἑνὸς κ τ. A; making 
ὥσπερ x. 7. 2. itself an apodosis instead of a protasis. So Cocceius, 
Elsner, Koppe, Cramer, Rosenmiiller, Stolz, and some others. 

(Ὁ) By inverting καὶ οὕτως, and writing it οὕτως καὶ x τ. A; and so 
making the rest of the verse which follows, to be the apodosis of the 
sentence. So Le Clerc, Wolf, Homberg, and others. 

(c) Καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας x τ. 2 15 made the beginning of the 
apodosis by Erasmus and Beza; which of course they must translate 
thus: so also by sin, &e. 

(d) Calvin, Gomer, Tholuck, Schmid, and some others, find the 
apodosis in verse 14, VIZ. ὃς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος. 

(e) Others find it concealed in verse 15; and some make it out 
from the whole of the sequel after verse 12. 

But all these methods come short of fully and definitely exhibiting 
the contrast here, which the apostle designs to make between the 
one man (Adam) who sinned, and Christ; which contrast appears 


; ROMANS V. 12. 903 


_ fully and plainly in verses 18, 19. With the majority of interpreters, 
_ therefore, I hesitate not to regard verses 13—L7 as substantially a 

_ parenthesis (thrown in to illustrate a sentiment brought to view in 
_ the protasis, verse 12); and I find a full apodosis only in verses 18, 
19, where the sentiment of verse 12 is virtually resumed and re- 
_ peated, and where the apodosis regularly follows, after an oir wx wi. 
(1 admit, however, that ὅς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μελλόντος in verse 14 conveys 
a general sentiment, which may make a kind of apodosis in the way 
of hint.) In this manner, and only in this, can I find the real 
antithesis or comparison as fully made out, which the apostle designs 
_tomake. This method of writing, too, where the protasis is sus 
pended for the sake of explanations thrown in, is altogether consonant 

with the usual method of the apostle Paul; comp. Rom. i. 3—7. ii. 
 6—16. Eph. 11. 1—5. πὶ. 1—13. 1 Tim. i. ὃ, 4. Rom. ix. 10, seq. 

- Rom. ix. 22, seq. Rom. viii. ὃ. Heb. iv. 6—9. v. 6B—10. v. 10. vii. 
61. ἴχ. 7—12. All that is necessary to be noted is, that the apodosis 
- in verses 18, 19, is given in language that takes its hue from the 
' intermediate parenthesis of verses 13—17. The simple apodosis 
. independently of this would be: οὕτω καὶ διὰ ἑνὸς δικαμοσύνη εἰς κόσμον 
εἰσῆλθε, καὶ εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους διῆλθε. 

Ai ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, by one man, i. 6.0 by Adam, as appears from verse 
_ 14; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22,45. The apostle cannot. design that 
this should be strictly construed ; for he himself has told us, that 
_ “Adam was not deceived ; but the woman, being deceived, was in 
_ the transgression.” (1 Tim. ii. 14. 2 Cor. xi. 3), 2. ¢., Eve first trans- 
- gressed; which, moreover, Paul assigns as a reason why she should 
not usurp authority and have precedence in the church. In the 
_ like way the son of Sirach represents Eve as the first transgressor, 
_ xxv. 24. If now it was a principal object with the apostle here, to 
point out specifically and with exactness the first author of trans- 
: 8 gression, how could he omit mentioning Eve? ΟΥ̓ 1 his main design 
__was to point out a corrupt nature propagated by ordinary generation, 
_ then why should he neglect to mention Eve along with Adam; fo. 
_ both parents surely were concerned in this? In respect to these 
_ questions it may be remarked further, that either the apostle, in 
_ making mention of Adam, trusted that his readers would spontane- 
_ ously call to mind the primitive pair, the woman being compre- 
 hended along with the man; or that he designed merely to compare 
__ the origin 1056} ἀπά extent οἵ" βίη and misery (without particularizing 
_ the manner), with the origin and extent of the deliverance from 


204 | ROMANS V. 12. 


them as wrought by Christ. In respect to the first of these sup- 
positions, the rule a potiori nomen jit seems to be applicable to the 
sentiment of it. Adam, as the constituted superior, who was first 
formed and made lord of the inferior creation: Adam, who by con- 
senting to the sin of his wife and participating in it made himself a 
full partaker of it; is named here from the fact of his precedence. 
It seems probable, also, that he only is named, because it is the par- 
ticular design of the writer to make a comparison between the second 
Adam (Christ) and the first. The congruity of the representation 
and comparison would be marred, by naming more than one author 
of sin and misery. Nor can any importance be here attached to the 
fact itself, that to were concerned in the primitive transgression: 
for “they twain were one flesh;” they were one also in guilt, ὦ, e., 
they were both partakers of the same criminality. The question is 
not concerning the exact manner in which the first transgression 
came to be committed (for this is not here any object of investiga- 
tion with Paul); but the question is: What influence had the primi- 
tive sin, in which Adam was the most conspicuous, responsible, and 
important actor, on the race of men, as to introducing and oceasion- 
ing sin and misery? 

It may also be remarked, that had Adam refused to unite with his 
wife in her transgression, the consequences must inevitably have been 
altogether different from what they have now been. His act, then, 
completed the mischief which was begun by Eve; and so the apostle 
names him here as the cause of all the evils which followed. This, 
however, does not prove that he considered Eve as less blameworthy 
than Adam, or more inexcusable; for 1 Tim. ii. 14 is directly opposed 
to such a notion: but it results, I apprehend, merely from a desire of 
congruity in respect to the comparison which he is to make, ἡ. 6.7 the 
congruity of comparing one person with one, one man (7. 6.7 the first 
Adam) with one man (i. e., the second Adam). How would it strike 
readers, if Eve had been here substituted for Adam? And this sug- 
gestion leads, at once, to a perception of what congruity demands in 
the case before us. > 

As to διὰ in this phrase, it designates here, as often elsewhere, the 
causa principalis, not themere secondary, instrumental, or occasional _ 
cause. Inthe Sept. and New Test., sucha usage is beyond all doubt — 
a frequent one, as any good lexicon will show. : 

Ἢ ἁμαρτία, sin. The sin would mean, in English, something dif- 
ferent from what the Greek here means, although the article is pre- 


ROMANS V. 12. 205 


fixed to the word. Whenever any thing is named which is generic 
in its nature, but waique or single in its kind, the Greeks usually 
prefix the article to it; 6. 9.» 6 φιλόσοφος, ἡ ἀρετή, ἡ ἀλήθεια, τὸ ἀγαθόν, 
ἡ δικαιοσύνη, ζο. Insuch cases, ἡ δικαιοσύνη (for example) as an entire 
genus, is unique, t. e., it differs from all other qualities of moral be- 
ings; and so it has the article prefixed in order to denote this. But 
still, δικαιοσύνη may at another time be regarded by the mind as a 
_ genus comprehending several subordinate species, such as commuta- 
_ tive justice, penal justice, integrity, &c.; in which case the article 
would naturally be omitted. Agreeably to these principles, ἡ ἁμαρτία 
here appears with the article, because it appears in its simple generic 
nature, 7. ¢., as single or monadic. ‘That it is generic here, 7. e., that 
it comprehends both sinful actions and affections, seems to be clear 
from the nature of the case, and from what follows. If Adam was 
created so as to be upright, and was purely holy until his fall, then 
sin commenced with his fall: sin of any kind; sin either in affection 
or action. That such a generic meaning must here be given to ἡ 
ἁμαρτία, is evident, from the simple fact, that Adam’s desire of the 
forbidden fruit inordinately indulged, was a sin of the affections, and 
his actually eating it was a sin of external action. 
. Bretschneider remarks (Dogmatik. II. 48, edit. 3), that the article 
 i8 used before ἁμαρτία in the verse before us, because it designates 
vitiositas, but not peccata actualia. But surely the sequel here will 
_ not justify hisremark; for the ἡ ἁμαρτία of Adam is called (verse 14) 
his παράξασις; in verses 15, 17, and 18, his παράπτωμα; in verse 19, 
his σαρακοή ; all of which implies peccatum actuale, viz., the unlawful 
desiring and eating of the forbidden fruit. 

The simple scriptural idea of ἁμαρτία is ἀνομία, t. 6.7) lawlessness, 
violation of law. Zo miss the mark, to err, to fail, is the primitive 
meaning of ἁμαρτάνω; and ἁμαρτία always has reference to some rule 
or law which is violated by it; as the apostolic. definition of it by 
ἀνομία Clearly shows. At all events nothing but sin as an act can be 
here designated ; for Adam’s sin was such. He had no previous 
| vitiositas ; and if vitiositas were here meant by ἁμαρτία, the assertion 
᾿ς could not be true: for. if vitiositas had been a part of the original 
constitution of man, Adam surely could not have been the author of 

this. The meaning must be, as afterwards asserted, that sin com- 
~ menced with Adam’s παράξασις OL παράπτωμα OF παροκχοῆ, neither of 
. Ff which is vitiositas but vitiwm. 
τ΄ Εἰς τὸν κόσωον, into the world, t. e., among men, into the world of 


ρον 


206 ROMANS V. 12. 


human beings; comp. Matt. xxvi. 13. 2 Pet. ii. 5. iii. 6. Matt. xiii. 
38. John i. 10. iii. 16, 17. xvi. 33. 2 Cor. 1. 12. Comp. also ἔρχεσθαι 
εἰς τὸν κόσμον, John vi. 14, ix. 39. xi. 27. xii. 46. Heb. x. 5. 2 John ii. 7. 
That the right explanation of κόσμος is given above, is confirmed by 
verse 18, where εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους is a substitute for it, and one of 
equivalent report. 

Εἰσῆλθε, entered into, invaded. ‘The first entrance or the com- 
mencement of sin is- here designated; asis plain from the sequel, 
where διῆλθε is used to designate the further and universal progress 
of sin. Compare Wisd. 11. 24, φθόνῳ δὲ διαβόλου ϑάνατος cio HAdev εἰς 
τὸν κόσμον: Xiv. 14, κενοδοξία. γὰρ ἀνθρώπων | idwrorargeia| εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν 
κόσμον. 

Καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, and by sin, 2. e., through the instrumentality 
of sin; or rather, by reason of sin, in consequence of sin, on account 
of sin; διά being usually employed in this sense, when put before the 
Genitive. 

Θάνατος, death. But what death? That of the body, or of the 
soul, or of both? In other words: Is temporal evil only here meant, 
or eternal, or both ? 

The answer must be sought for, first of all, in the wsus loquendi of 
the author himself. In the context we have his own explanation of 
ϑάνατος. Inver. 15, death, (ἀπέθανον) stands opposed to χάρις rod Θεοῦ 
nal ἡ δωρεὰ ev χάριτι. In ver. 17, it stands opposed to τὴν περισσείαν τῆς 
χάριτος καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης. In ver. 21, it stands opposed to 
ζωὴν αἰώνιον. In chap. vi. 23, ϑάνατος is directly contrasted with ζωὴ 
αἰώνιος. That ϑάνατος, then, by the usus loguendi of Paul, does 
sometimes mean a death which is the opposite of eternal life or happi- 
ness, is here made certain. 

In the like sense, 7. ¢., as used to designate the penalty of sin, the 
reader may find ϑάνατος in other writings of Paul ; viz. in Rom. i. 32. 
vi. 21. vi. 16. vii. §. vii. 10. vii. 13. vii. 24. viil. 2. viii. 6. 2 Cor. ii. 
16. vii. 10. 2 Tim. i. 10. Heb. ii. 14. Nor is this peculiar to Paul 
alone, for it agrees with that of other sacred writers in the New 
Testament; 6. g.. John viii. 51. v. 24. James i. 15. 1 John iii. 14. 
Rev. ii. 11. xx. 6, xx. 14. 

In like manner we find the word death to be used in the Old Tes- © 
tament; 6. g., Deut. xxx. 15. Jer. xxi. 8 (comp. Sirach xv. 7). Prov. — 
y. 5. vili. 36. xi. 19. xii. 28. Ezek. xxxiii. 11. And in the same © 
way the verb to die is employed; 6. g., by Paul, Rom. viii. 13; by 
John vi. 50. xi. 26. viii. 21. Soin the Old Testament; ὁ. g., Ezck. 


ΨΥ ee oe) lL ΡΝ, τ," 


ROMANS VY. 12. 207 


xvill. 4. xviil. 20. xviii. 17. xviii. 21. xviii. 24. xvill. 28. xviii. 32. 
Prov. xv. 10. Ezek. xxxiii. 8. xxxili. 11. xxxiii. 14. xxxiil. 15. Prov. 
xxxill. 13, Must not this be the sense, also, in Gen. 11. 17. i. 3, 4? 

If any one now will carefully investigate all these examples, he 
will find that in many cases it is quite impossible to limit the words 
death, die, so as to make them signify no more than the dissolution 
of the body, or temporal death. #. g. John viii. 51, ‘If any man 
shall keep my saying, he shall never see death’ John v. 24, ‘He 
that heareth my words. . . is passed from death unto life’ John xi. 
26, ‘ Whosoever . μων: in me, shall never die’? Ezek. xviii. 
90) Ee: «s that turneth away from his transgressions .. . shall 
surely live, he shall not die;’ and to the same tek in phi of the 
other passages quoted. The biblical usage is very definitely and 
specifically set forth in Deut. xxx. 5; ‘See, [ have set before thee 


this day, LIFE and GOOD, and DEATH and EVIL.’ No better expla- 


nation can be given. Life is the image of all good, and therefore 
is employed to express it; death is the consummation of all evil, and 
so it is used as a strong expression in order to designate every kind 
of evil, whether temporal or eternal. 

That the usus loquendi, then, permits γάνατος to be construed as 
designating the penalty of sin, yea the whole penalty, there can be 
no good ground to doubt. ‘The only question now is: Whether 
Sdvaros is employed in this sense in the passage before us? 

_ The antithesis in verses 15, 17, 21, and vi. 23, as produced above, 
would seem to go far toward a final settlement of this question. 
Indeed, there is no philological escape from the conclusion, that death 
in the sense of penalty for sin, must be regarded as the meaning of 


the writer here. 


Is there any thing now in the nature of the case, which goes to 
show that death should here have a limited meaning given to it, or 
(in other words) that it should be construed as ae sates the 
death of the body ? 

_ What then is the nature of the case? It is this, viz., that as con- 
demnation [κατάκριμα] came upon all men by the offence of one 


_ man (Adam), so by the obedience of one (Christ), all men have 
access to δικαΐωσις εἰς ζωήν, verse 18. Now as ζωή is here plainly the 
antithesis of ϑάνατος [κατάκριμα], we have only to inquire what must 
be the meaning of ζωή in order to obtain that of ϑάνατος. But in 
respect to this there can be no doubt. Zw means the blessings or 


208 ROMANS V. 12. 


happiness procured by a Saviour’s death, 7. 6.5 it designates all the 
holiness and happiness which this introduces. But certainly these 
blessings are not limited to the resurrection of the body. I do not 
deny that such a resurrection is a blessing to the righteous (for so 
the apostle plainly considers it in 1 Cor. xv). I would rather say 
however, that the resurrection is something preparatory to the be- 
stowment of blessings. But it must be remembered, that the wicked 
will be raised from the dead as truly as the righteous; yet surely no 
one will count this a blessing to them. It is only a preparation for 
augmented misery. 

It cannot be, then, that the simple resurrection from the dead, in 
itself considered, should be called δικαίωσις ζωῆς, and therefore a state 
of temporal death is not a direct and full antithesis to life, 7. e., in 
the sense given to this word by the apostle, temporal death is not 
principally the evil from which it is the main object of Christ to 
deliver us; for resurrection from this is a good or an evil, just as the 
case may be in regard to the moral character of him who is the sub- 
ject of such resurrection. 

Does Christ then deliver from the suffering itself of temporal death? 
A formal answer to this is unnecessary, since all men without dis- 
tinction, are mortal and die. One thing, however, should be said 
in reference to this; which is, that ‘the sting of death’ is taken 
away as to believers, through the hopes inspired by a Saviour’s blood; 
and that in this way the evil is greatly mitigated in respect to those 
who have true hope in Christ. 

Once more; the penalty of all sin is evil, ¢. e., evil as to both body 
and soul. ‘ The soul that sinneth shall die.” Evil to the body those 
of course will admit, who hold that temporal death is here meant. 
Evil to the soul they must also admit; for how is it possible that any 
one should sin, without defiling, polluting, and rendering unhappy 
the soul? The primary elements of the moral universe must be 


changed, before this can take place. It is impossible in the case οὔ 


Adam, or in any other case, that sin should be committed without 


injury to the soul. It-would follow with certainty, then, that if 
Adam’s first sin was a real sin, and a fortior? if it was one of the ~ 


greatest of all sins (as we surely have much reason to conclude 


when we consider its consequences), then death in its extensive sense — 


must have been the penalty attached to it. What reason can be 
given, why other sins less than his are punishable with death in the 


a  ΌΥΝΝ 


ee a νν γον 


ROMANS V. 12. 209 


enlarced sense of this word, and yet that the sin of Adam was not 
punishable in the like way? Was he not even the more culpable, 
who fell from a state of entire holiness ? 

Finally, the apostle, when he comes to point out the dissimilitude 
between Adam’s offence and its consequences, and the obedience of 
Christ and its consequences (as he does in verses 15—17), opposes 
the κατάκριμα occasioned by Adam to the δικαΐωμα effected by Christ, 
verse 16; and the ϑάνατος introduced by the former, to the βασίλεύειν 
ἐν ζωῇ accomplished by the latter, verse 17. Now as δικαίωμα is not, 
in its more important sense, a deliverance from temporal death mere- 
ly, nor the reigning in life merely a deliverance from mortality ; so 
temporal death cannot with any good appearance of reason, be under- 
stood here as the only and essential meaning of ϑάνωτος. That ϑάνατος 
includes this among other evils, I would not by any means be under- 


_ stood to deny; for 1 Cor. xv. 22 shows, that Paul clearly held the 


death of the body to have been introduced by Adam. But that this 
was the prominent evil in his mind, so much so as to be here 
named as the principal thing which constituted the penalty threat- 
ened to our first parents, is, I trust, rendered sufficiently improbable 
by the considerations above stated. See Excursus III. for further 
remarks. 

Kai οὕτως, and thus, and so, or and in like manner. An important 
inquiry may be here raised, viz., Does the apostle mean to say: 
“In consequence of sin’s entering the world and death by sin, through 
the transgression of Adam—as the natuval and necessary, or at least © 
as the established consequence of this—sin and death came upon all 
other men;’ in other words, does he mean to say, that ‘the coming 
of sin and death upon all other men, was occasioned by Adam’s 
committing sin and incurring death? Or does he mean thus: ‘As 
it was with Adam, when he sinned and death came upon him in 
consequence of it, so it is with all other men, 7. e., they sin and death 
in like manner comes upon them? 

The former meaning implies a special connection between Adam 
and his posterity, and a special influence of his crime and condemna- 
tion upon their sin and condemnation; the latter contains no such 
implication, but merely avers, that all who sin, whether Adam or his 
posterity, fall under sentence of condemnation. ‘The word οὕτως is 
capable of either interpretation; as it means either hoc modo, hac 
ratione, or similiter, simili modo. Which of these is the sense that 


ἣν the writer here means to express, we shall be better enabled to in- 


0 


210 ROMANS V. 12. 


quire into, when we have gone through with the remaining words of 
the verse. 

"EQ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, BECAUSE THAT all have sinned. Another 
method of rendering this has often been urged, viz., IN WHOM all 
have sinned. So the Vulgate; and so, in conformity to this, Augus- 
tine, Beza, Calixtus, E. Schmidt, Calovius, Quenstedt, Raphel, et 
alii. But the objections to translating ἐφ᾽ ᾧ by in quo, in whom, are 
weighty; for, (1) If ᾧ be made a masce. relative pronoun here, there 
is no antecedent for it within any probable limits. ᾿Ανθρώπου lies 
too far back; and ϑάνατος as an antecedent, would make no tolerable 
sense; for what meaning could be conveyed, by saying, ‘in which 
death all have sinned? (2) ᾽᾿Ἐπὶ ᾧ (ἐφ᾽ 3) does not, by Greek usage, 
mean in whom: ἐν would of course be the proper expression for 
this. So Thomas Magister and Phavorinus: ἐφ᾽ 6, ἀντὶ rod ὃ ὁ τ ΄. 
Comp. 2 Cor. v. 4, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ οὐ ϑέλομεν, because we will not. (3) The 
assertion ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, is dwelt upon and explained in verses 
13, 14; and in these verses, men’s own personal sins appear to be 
spoken of (as we shall hereafter see), not those of another which are 
laid to their charge; and if this explanation be admitted, then ἐφ᾽ ᾧ 
cannot here mean in whom. (4) If ἐφ᾽ ᾧ could be properly taken as 
equivalent to ἐν ᾧ (and so much is true, viz., that ἐπί and ἐν are beyond 
all doubt frequently commuted as to sense in some cases that occur 
in the New Testament), yet the whole phrase, viz., ἁμαρτάνειν ἐπί τινι, 
meaning to sin in some one or by one, is, so far as 1 know, without 
any example to support it. How can it then be here adopted, 
against the usual idiom of the Greek language, and against another 
and preferable sense? Ifthe apostle had designed to express such 
an unusual idea, would he not of course have shunned all ambiguity 
of phraseology, and made the form of his expression so definite that 
no doubt could remain? As it is, we must follow the usual laws ΟἹ 
interpretation ; and there can be no doubt that we are authorized 
by these to translate ἐφ᾽ ᾧ because, for that, &e. Thus in the ex- 
amples adduced by Phavorinus: ἐφ᾽ @ τὴν κλοπὴν ἐργάσω, BECAUSE 
thou hast committed theft; ἐφ᾽ οἷς [plur.] τὸν νόμον οὐ τηρεῖς, BECAUSE 
thou dost not obey the law. So in the example of Thomas Magister. 
sy’ ὦ Τερνάδιον ἔγραφε», BECAUSE he has given a sketch of Gennadius, 
So Marcus Aurelius says: ἐφ᾽ οἷς ὁρᾶτέ με διακείμενον, BECAUSE Ye see 
me determined, in Herod. 1. 4. Theophilus (ad Autol. 2) says: ἐφ᾽ ᾧ 
οὖκ ἴσχυσε ϑανατῶσαι αὑτούς, BECAUSE he could not kill them; Plutarch 
(de Pyth.extr.) ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐγενόμην... . πρόθυμος, BECAUSE I was ready. 


ΨΥ 


ROMANS V. 12. | 211 


In fact, ἐφ᾽ is a well known elliptical phrase, employed in the same 

sense as ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι, or our English in that, because. And in this 
rendering agree Theodoret, Photius, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther, 
Calvin, Pet. Martyr, our Eng. Version, Gerhard, Piscator, Parzus, 
Buddeus, Raphel, Wetstein, Carpzov, Koppe, Flatt, Schott, Vata- 
blus, Schmid, Steudel, Tholuck, Riickert, Reiche, and many others. 
If the apostle had meant here to say in whom, i. ¢., to communicate 
the idea which would seem to be conveyed by this, how could he 


avoid saying: ‘Death has come upon all men, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ 2. 6.7 [in 


the one man] all have sinned?’ 

Other translations of ἐφ᾽ «have also been defended; per eum 
(Grotius); propter quem (Elsner) ; ; secundum quem (Photius, Gicu- 
menius, Bretsch.); cum quo (Cocceius); but it is enough to say of 
these, that if Paul had meant to express such a sense, we can hardly 
suppose that he would not have employed διά, or σύν, or μετά, OF κατά, 
instead of using ἐπί, Even post guem has been proposed as a version 
of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ t.¢. AFTER whom. But what would be the sense of Paul’s 
saying, that Adam’s posterity sinned after he did? Did his readers 
need to be told this ? 

One other explanation deserves notice, inasmuch as it is patron- 
ized by Homberg, Venema, Schmid, Gléckler, and some others, and 
has more the appearance of probability and of usus loguendi in its 
favour. This is, ἐφ᾽ 6 UNTO which, viz., unto which death or punish- 
ment; thus making ἐπί to mark the end or consequence to which 
sinning came. In the classics we find νοσεῖν ἐπὶ ϑανάτῳ, to be sick 
unto death (Atlian), and δῆσαι ἐπὶ ϑανάτῳ, to bmd UNTO death 
(Herod.), and other like phrases. But after all, a conclusive objec- 
tion against this interpretation is, that the apostle has just said the 
very thing that this interpretation makes him to say over again, and 
said it more strongly. Besides to understand the apostle here as 
saying that all have sinned UNTO death, would seem to imply, that 
they might have sinned to a certain extent without incurring such a 
penalty. Different from this is the case where another apostle says, 
“there is asin unto death;” for he is 3 there discussing the subject 
of an unpardonable sin. 

Finally: to render ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, on account of which, for the sake of 
which, would be little short of nonsense: for how could the apostle 
say, that all men sinned for the sake of bringing death upon them- 
selves ? 

When Origen, Ambrose, J crome, Augustine, and some other 


212 | ROMANS V. 12. 


fathers, adopt the sense of in quo, this appears to be the result of 
their theology rather than of their philology. Augustine has given 
us the explanation of his views: “ Fuerunt enim omnes ratione se- 
minis in lumbis Adam quando damnatus est: et ideo sine illis dam- 
natus non est: quemadmodum fuerunt Israelite in lumbis Abrahe, 
quando decimatus est,” [Heb. VII. 9, 10]; contra Jul. Pelag. V. 12. . 
And again: “In Adam omnes tune peccaverunt, quando in ejus na- 
tura, illa insitaé vi qua eos gignere poterat, adhuc omnes tlle unus 
Ffuerunt,’ De pece. Merit. et Rem. UI. 7. The same unity with 
Adam has Pres. Edwards laboured to establish in Part 1V. chapter 
3 of his work on Original sin; where he has argued, that the iden- 
tity of one and the same individual is merely an effect of “arbitrary 
divine constitution ;” and that the wnity of each mdividual of the 
human race with Adam their common ancestor may as well be as- 
serted, as the unity of any individual with himself at different points 
of time; unity in both cases being merely a matter of “ sovereign 
and arbitrary appointment.” The schoolmen have speculated ad 
nauseam on this subject. 

Παντες ἥμαρτον, all have sinned. But how? In their own proper 
persons? Orin Adam? Or is it merely the meaning of ἥμαρτον 
here, that all men are treated us sinners ? 

This last opinion Storr maintains; and he appeals to Gen. xliv. 
32, ‘SDM then 1 will bear the blame, i. e., I will be treated as a sinner, 
as he construesit. But the meaning is, ‘I will consent to be regarded 
as a sinner by my father’ He also refers to Job ix. 29, YOUN O8; 
which however does not support the appeal. Grotius also appeals 
to Gen. xxxi. 27, and Job vi. 24 (?) for the like purpose; but with- 
out ground. And although, if an exigency of the passage demanded 
it, ἥμαρτον might be rendered, are treated as sinners (comp. 1 K.i. 21, 
where, however, the meaning is ‘I and my son shall be sinners in 
the view of the reigning prince’); yet no such exigency occurs here, 
as vers. 13, 14, show; for in these (which are plainly built upon 
the latter part of verse 12), the writer labours to show that men are 
themselves actual sinners; as we shall see in the sequel. Besides, 
it is a good rule of interpretation, never to depart from the usual 
sense of words unless there is an imperious reason for it; and usu- 
ally ἁμαρτάνω does not mean, to be treated as a sinner, It is surely a 
doubtful case, whether it ever has this meaning. 

There remain, then, only the other two methods of construing 
ἥμαρτον, Which are adyerted to in the first and second questions 


SE a eee 


ROMANS V. 12. 213 


above. But the second method, viz., that all men have sinned IN 
Adam, cannot be adopted here, because it is founded merely in the 
mode of expression, 2. ¢., in the phrase ἐφ᾽ ¢. The reasons for reject- 
ing this opinion have already been stated above. It can be admitted 
only in case. of philological necessity, which does not occur here. 
There remains, therefore, only the first plain and simple method of 
interpretation, viz., all men have sinned in their own persons; all 
men have themselves incurred the guilt of sin, and so subjected 


“themselves to its penalty; or at least, all men are themselves sin- 


ners, and so are liable to death. 


The word ἥμαρτον which the apostle here employs, is not fairly 


susceptible of a different interpretation. It contains in itself an 
active sense throughout; and must therefore imply sin in an active 
sense. Accordingly, the word ἁμαρτάνω has neither passive nor 
middle voice; which is a striking evidence that the word is, from its 
very nature, susceptible of only an active sense. Besides, in the case 
before us the Aorist is employed; which, as Riickert and Reiche 
have well observed, designates what was matter of fact, not mere 
state or condition. ‘I'he connection strongly impresses the same idea. 
The sin of Adam, mentioned in the first clause of the verse, was one 
of fact, deed, action, not of state or condition; and the implication is, 
that the πάντες have sinned as he did, although not against the same 
law; or precept, ver. 14. Moreover, the assertion of universal sin- 
fulness has an evident reference to the apostle’s previous declaration 
and conclusion, in ii. 19—23. All his proof iin chaps. 1.—ii. of 
universal sin, consists in appeal to facts, 2. e., to sins actually com- 
mitted. 

I am aware that a different sense has been given to πάντες ἥμαρτον 
here, by some of the most respectable commentators. They regard 
it as meaning that all have sinned in Adam, or at least, that through 
him they have become sinners; and they appeal to vers. 17—19 in 
support of this sentiment. And it must be confessed, that there is 
no more ground for objection to the sentiment which the expression 
thus construed would convey, than there is to the sentiment in vers. 
17—19. It isnot on this ground, that I hesitate to receive this in- 
terpretation. It is because there are philological difficulties involved 
in such an exegesis, which I see no way of satisfactorily removing. 
Vers. 13 and 14 seem plainly to recognise such sin as that of which 
men are personally and actually guilty ; yea a sin different in some 
important respects from that of Adam’s first transgression, . ... ἐπὶ 


214 ROMANS ν. 19, 


τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως ᾿Αδάμ. This is a 
sin moreover, on account of which “death reigned over them.” 
But if this sin were the very sin of Adam imputed to them, and not 
their own actual sin; if it were merely his sin propagated to them 
(as the usual sentiment respecting original sin is); then how could 
it be that death came upon them, although they had no¢ sinned after 
the likeness of Adam’s transgression? So far from this must it be, 
that Adam’s sin is their very sin, and the very ground here alleged 
by the apostle why death reigns over them. 

This consideration, united with the principle that the ordinary 
meaning of ἥμαρτον should be received, unless there is a solid reason 
for departing from it; and all this added to the consideration that 
verses 13, 14 are clearly epexegetical of the latter part of vers. 12; 
seem to make it unavoidable that πάντες ἥμαρτον should be here con- 

strued, all have sinned in their own persons or actually. 
- I know, indeed, that such distinguished men as Calvin, Edwards, 
Flatt, Tholuck, and others, explain the phrase in question by refer- 
ring to ver. 19; and some of them allege as a ground of this, that the 
design of the apostle requires us so to understand πάντες ἥμαρτον here, 
because he is evidently intent upon representing the evils which 
Adam occasioned. But because ver. 19 asserts an influence of Adam 
upon the sinfulness of men, it does not follow that the same senti- 
ment must therefore be of course affirmed in ver. 12; certainly not 
that it should be directly asserted in the same manner. It appears 
quite probable, I readily concede, that Paul, in making the declara- 
tions contained in ver. 12, had in his own mind a view of the con- 
nection between the first offence of Adam and the sinfulness of his 
posterity. It seems to me quite probable, indeed, that καὶ οὕτως 
implies this; which (with Erasmus, Tholuck, and others) we might 
construe, et ita factum est, 1. e., and so tt happened, or and thus it 
was brought about, viz., brought about that all men became sinners, 
aad thus fell under sentence of death; in other words, Adam’s offence 
was the occasion of, or brought, sin and condemnation upon all men. 
I readily concede that there is no good reason to deny that Paul did 
entertain the idea, when he made the declarations in ver. 12, that 
the fact of all men’s becoming sinners and being subjected to the 
dominion of death, was connected with the first transgression of Adam 
(comp. verses 17—19); yet that the apostle has asserted this senti- 
ment explicitly and directly in ver. 12, cannot, I think, be made out 
from the language by any just rules of interpretation. Nay, for 


eS 


ee eee ee ae δίς νιν 


Che ee 


nrc rainy ARNIS uO τα τον ΣῊ Bk 


ROMANS v. 12. 215 


reasons already given, and yet to be stated, I cannot but regard the 
case as quite clear, that no more is here explicitly and directly 
asserted, than that all men are themselves actual sinners, and there- 
fore come under condemnation. But in the preceding ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν 
κόσμον εἰσῆλθε, and in the καὶ οὕτως... . διῆλθε, 1 think we may 
without any forced construction, nay that we must, discover an indi- 
rect intimation of what is directly asserted in verses 17—19, viz., 
that the first offence of Adam was connected with the sin and misery 
of his posterity, and in some sense or other causal of it. At the out- 
set, then, Paul may have had this sentiment in his mind; yet in 
ver. 12 he seems to intimate it only in the expressions just cited. 
Construed in this way, the sense of the verse would be as follows: 
‘ By means of Adam’s first offence sin and death invaded the world 
of mankind; and having thus invaded it, they have been marching 
through it (διῆλθε) and carrying on their conquests ever since ; all 
men have become sinners, all have come under condemnation.’ 

While the clause before us, then, asserts the fact that all have 
become sinners and have therefore come under condemnation, it may 
be regarded as intimating, by implication, that the whole of what has 
come upon men stands connected with the introduction by Adam of 
sin and death into the world. I cannot, therefore, agree with those 
commentators, who find in our verse no intimation of such a connec- 
tion of all men with Adam ; less still can I assent to those, who find 
in it no charge at all upon Adam’s posterity of actual sin in propria 
persona. 

The objection made by Flatt against construing the clause before 
us as having respect to actual sin, seems to be destitute of any good 
ground of support. ‘In this way,’ says he, ‘infants must be in- 
cluded among actual sinners ; which is not true.’ But how can any 
more difficulty arise from saying that all are sinners here, than from 
the apostle’s saying the very same thing so often in the previous part 
of his epistle, 6. g., iii, 9—18, 19, 23? Ofcourse the writer of such 
declarations must be understood (if he means to designate actual 
sinners in the passage just adverted to, as it is agreed that he does), 
to designate such as are capable of being so; just as when it is said ; 
“ He that believeth not shall be damned,” we understand the Saviour 
to speak of such as are capable of belief or unbelief. There is surely 
no more difficulty inthe one case thaninthe other. That the apostle 
had his eye on the case of infants, in particular, any where in this 
whole paragraph, may be justly regarded as doubtful; particularly 


210 ROMANS Vv. 12. 


must we doubt this, when we bring Rom. ix. 11 into the account, 
which surely implies a state of infants quite different from that which 
the charge in Rom. v. 17—19 would imply, in case we suppose them 
to be purposely. included in this charge. 

{n truth, I do not see on what ground the reasoning here can be 
supposed to embrace infants and idiots, without assuming a principle 
that almost every one disclaims with a kind of horror in other cases 
ofa like nature. Take the case above presented with several others; 
viz., “ He that believeth not, shall be damned; Except ye repent, ye 
shall all perish ; Without faith it is impossible to please God; He 
that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is the re- 
warder of those who diligently seek him; Make to yourselves anew 
heart, for why will you die.” To these might be added almost an 
unlimited number of like cases. Now in what sense do infants and 
idiots ever understand and obey these and the like commands and 
principles? This question, one might properly insist, should be 
answered by those who strongly assert that infants were designedly 
included by the apostle here. Are we not, on every rational ground 
of interpr etation, just as much entitled to say, that the Saviour pur- 
posely consigns over to damnation all infants because they do not and 
cannot believe? To believe what we do not understand, is out of the | 
question; and that infants and idiots should understand the gospel 
method of salvation, is equally so. By general consent, then, we 
omit to include infants and idiots in the threatening, “ He that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned.” We suppose this is applicable to those 
only, who are physiologically and psychologically capable of under- 
standing and believing. 

Let us be consistent. When the apostle speaks of those who have 
sinned and come under the penalty of death, he must mean those who 
were capable of sin in the actual sense ; i. e., he must mean so, if the 
word ἥμαρτον characterises such. And that it does, has, as it seems 
to me, been already shown above. But to suppose all this, does not 
involve the idea, that the apostle means to disclaim any participation 
by infants and idiots in any of the evils brought on Adam’s posterity 
by his fall. Bynomeans. It no more involves this, than the asser- 
tion, that “without faith it is impossible to please God,” involves 
the idea that no infants or idiots can ever find favour in his sight. 
It is facts, it is the real state of things, it is these compared with 
the explicit declarations respecting infants that are made in the 
Scriptures, which are to be our guide in the formation of opinions 


ROMANS V. 12. 917 


relative to their condition. How can we with propriety elicit from 
the text of the apostle then, a decision respecting a case that he 
evidently had not in view? 

Again; should it be objected, that the parallel between the effects 
of Adam’ s sin and the grace of Christ would lose its meaning, in case 
we suppose that men’s own actual sins are designated in τς passage 
before us; my answer would be, that this is by no means the case, 
if Adam be regarded as the original cause of introducing sin into the 
world, and his offence as in some way the cause or occasion of all 
the offences that followed. Indeed this is the only ground on which 
a true parallelism can be maintained. Does the grace of Christ save 
any sinner who does not repent and believe? Surely not. Then of 
course the grace of Christ is not the only thing requisite to the sal- 
vation of sinners. ‘There must be some act of their own, as well as 
the provisions which grace has made, in order that they should be 
saved. Turn now the tables and look at the counterpart. Must 
there not be something on the part of the sinner himself, as well as 
on the part of Adam, to complete his full and final destruction? 
Must there not be a true and real πάντες juagrov? ‘This argument, 
then, although so often and so strenuously urged, would seem to be 
a kind of felo de se. The very nature of the parallelism before us 
would seem to demand a different conclusion, and in some respects 
one opposite to that which is often drawn. 

Once more; the evils occasioned by Adam surely are not, as many 
suppose, limited by the apostle, and by the nature of the case are not 
to be limited, to that part only of suffering which comes upon our 
race by reason of original sin (as it is called), whatever this sin may 
be. Verse 14 speaks of ‘death as reigning over those who had NOT 
sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression ; and of course it 
speaks of a sin committed by Adam’s posterity, different from that of 
Adam; and verse 16 speaks of the many offences which the free gift 
of Christ takes away or causes to be pardoned, in distinction from the 
one offence only of Adam’s that. is concerned with our sin and con- 
demnation. It follows of course, and we are thus assured, that the 
apostle does not limit himself to the one offence of Adam and its con- 
_ sequences in the alleged way of imputation, when he exhibits the 
- contrast between Adam and Christ. Why should he do so? If 
actual sin in any way proceeds from, is connected with, or is occa- 
᾿ς sioned by, the sin of Adam; then does it follow, that actual sin 
_ should enter into the contrast presented by the apostle, between the 


218 | ROMANS νυ. 12. 


sin and misery occasioned by the first Adam, and the justification 
and happiness introduced by the second. 

On the whole, then, there seems to be no valid reason why we may 
not construe révreg ἥμαρτον, as I have done above. 

Let us now return to the καὶ οὕτως, the interpretation of which 
was left unfinished. Does it mean: “ And in like manner with Adam 
did his posterity sin, and like him come under sentence of death? 
Or is this the meaning: ‘ As death followed sin in the case of Adam, 
so did it in the case of his posterity?’ Or does the apostle intend to 
say, ‘Since Adam introduced sin and misery into the world, his sin 
has been imputed to all his posterity, and all of them have been sub- 
jected to death thereby?’ Not the first; because ver. 14 tells us that 
death came on many of Adam’s posterity, who had Nor sinned in 
the manner that he did, ¢. 6.9 against a revealed and express law. 
Not the third; for the reasons already given above, reasons why 
we must accede to the idea, that πάντες ἥμαρτον here means actual sin 
in propria persond. Shall we conclude then, that the meaning of 
καὶ οὕτως must be substantially what is implied in the second of the 
above questions, viz., ‘ As sin entered the world, and death was in- 
separably connected with it, so death has passed through the world, 
and come upon all men, because it was inseparably connected with 
the sin which all men have committed?’ Even this statement does 
not appear to me to convey the whole truth. The whole verse seems 
to contain an intimation, as has already been stated above, that both 
the sins of men and their condemnation stand connected, in some 
way or other, with the first offence by Adam. Καὶ οὕτως then must 
mean: ‘And the matter being thus,’ or ‘circumstances being such, 
viz., Adam having thus introduced sin and death, ‘it passed on 
through all his race,’ ὁ, ¢., all have sinned, and all have come under 
condemnation in these circumstances. If we look at verses 18, 19, 
we shall surely find that the introduction of sin and death was con 
sidered by Paul as having some important connection with the diffu- 
sion of them in after ages. Καὶ οὕτως then may mean here, et hac 
conditione, et ita factum est, et rebus sic constitutis. 


ROMANS V. 13. . 219 


CHAP. V. 13, 14. 


Ὄ x - 
Ε THE apostle having thus declared that sin and death were introduced into the world by one 
man, and had become universal, in order to. complete the comparison which he designs, and 
_ which is intimated by ὥσπερ at the beginning of ver. 12, he would have naturally filled out the 
sentence by adding, at the end of this verse, οὕτως καὶ δύ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ζωὴ εἰς τὸν κόσμον [εἰς 
πάντας ἀνθρώπους] εἰσῆλθε, comp. Vers. 17,18. Buthe suspends his apodosis here, for the sake of 
elucidating and confirming what he had already said. This confirmation is made by the verses 
now under consideration; as the γάρ confirmantis with which they are introduced, very clearly 
_ shows. What has he said? That al] have sinned, and that all are under sentence of death. 
How is this elucidated and confirmed ἢ By taking a case in respect to which one might be dis- 
posed to think that it would be difficult to prove that men are sinners, since the apostle himself 
had already explicitly declared it to be the law which occasions punishment: for where there ts 
_ no law, there is no transgression, iv. 15. ‘To meet this difficulty, which might easily arise, he avers 
_ that-men were sinners (ἁμαρτία ἦν ἐν κόσμῳ) before the giving of the Mosaic law; although they 
_ are not themselves prone to acknowledge their guilt in such circumstances, or they make but 
_ little account of it. Yet it isa fact that they were sinners, and that death therefore prevailed 
over them all, even all who had not sinned against revealed law as Adam did. 

_ Such I take to be the confirmation of what was asserted at the close of ver. 12. To explain 
_ and establish this exegesis, is of course the next object of attention. . 


“Axe: νόμου until the law; %. e., the law of Moses, as ver. 14 
plainly leads us to construe it. Some commentators (Origen, Chry- 
_ sostom, Erasmus, Coppe, and others) construe ἄχρι νόμου not as 
_ designating the commencement of the Mosaic economy, but as extend- 
_ ing through the whole period of it. In defence of such an interpre- 
tation, we are referred to ἄχρι in Acts iii. 21, and its synonyme ἕως 
᾿ς é in Acts ii. 35. Gen. xxviii. 15, &e. That these words are some- 
_ times employed in such a manner as not to indicate a cessation of any 
_ thing that.is, or is done, at the time which is mentioned in connection 
- with ἄχρι or ἕως, 'Β true. In other words, the terminus ad quem does 
᾿ς not limit the thing affirmed universally ; it only expresses a limit for 
-acertain purpose. Forexample: in Acts iii. 21 it is said, that ‘the 
heavens must receive Jesus ἄχρι χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων, until the 
restoration of all things; by which is not meant, that he is no longer 
to dwell in heaven, but that he will certainly dwell there until the 
time specified. In like manner ἄχρι, it is said, may here admit the 
whole time of the Mosaic law to be included. 


220 ROMANS V. 13. 


But whatever may be true in regard to the possible meaning of 
ἄχρι in some cases, ver. 14 clearly shows that here it means only 
until the commencement of the laws of Moses, ὦ e., the time when 
these laws were given. , 

4 But howcan this be? Was sin in the world no longer than until 
that period? Did it cease when the law was introduced? This would 
be a direct contradiction of ver. 20, and of many other passages.’ 
The answer is brief. It is no part of the apostle’s object, to aver that 
sin did not exist after this period; but to declare that it existed before 
it. What he had already said, once and again, necessarily involved 
the idea, that where law was there sin was. But he had also said, 
that “ where there is no law, there is no transgression,” iv. 15. Now 
some of his readers might suggest, and this not unnaturally ; ‘ Since 
you say that where there is no law, there is no transgression, how 
then were men sinners before the law was given?’ I allow that no 
intelligent and candid man could have good ground to put such a 
question, after all which the apostle had already said on this subject. — 
But surely we are not to suppose, that Paul had to do only with 
men of this character. The objections answered throughout the 
epistle show a state of things quite different from this. 

To the question as above suggested, then, I suppose the apostle to 
answer in our verse. ‘ Sin,’ says he, ‘was in the world until the — 
law of Moses, 7. δ.) men were sinners between the time of Adam and 
Moses, for death reigned during all this period, ver. 13. In other 
words ; it is not necessary that there should be a law expressly re- 
vealed, in order that men should be sinners; for “ the heathen who 
have no law, are a Jaw unto themselves,” ii. 14. 

That ἁμαρτία here means something different from original sin, or 
imputed sin, seems to be clear from the reference which the apostle 
tacitly makes to a law of nature that had been transgressed. A 
revealed law there was not for men in general, antecedently to the 
time of Moses; yet men were sinners. How? By sinning against’ 
the law “ written on their hearts” (ii. 15); and sinning in despite 
of the penalty of death, 1. 82. But if such was their sin, it was 
actual sin, not merely imputed guilt. 

Very different views of ἁμαρτία here, however, are entertained by 
some, who state the whole of the apostle’s reasoning in the following 
manner: viz., ‘ Men’s own sins were not imputed to them on the 
yround of their transgressing any law, until the law of Moses w 
given; yet they were counted sinners (ἁμαρτία ἦν ἐν κόσμῳ); con 


ROMANS V. 13. 221 


quently, it must have been by reason of Adam’s sin being imputed 
to them, inasmuch as their own offences were not imputed,’ 
Although this mode of exegesis is supported by names of high 
respectability, I cannot accede to it for the following reasons: 1. Τὸ 
aver that men’s own sins were not imputed to them by God (so they 
construe ἁμαρτία δὲ οὐκ ἐλλογεῖται μὴ bvr0s νόμου), 15 directly to contradict 
_ the whole tenor οὐ ὑπὸ Old Testament history and declarations; and 
also what Paul has, in the most explicit manner, asserted in the 
; preceding part of bis epistle.. As evidence in favour of the first 
__ assertion I appeal to the case of Cain; of the antediluvians who 
Ἢ peevehed in the flood; of Sodom and Gomorrha; and to all the 
_ declarations of divine displeasure made against the actual thoughts 
and deeds of the wicked, not against ibis original or imputed sin. 
Ἷ tn respect to the second, I appeal to the whole of what Paul has said 
'in Rom. i. 19—32. i. 12, 14, 15. imi. 9, 19, 23, 25. All these 
- charges are made against antes sins; and it is impossible to suppose 
_ that the apostle means here to say, that those who are évouo: (without 
_ revelation), are, or ever have been, counted by God as being without 
ο sin, actual sin; for both ἄνομο, and ἔννορ ὁ.) according to Paul, 
are ALL UNDER SIN, under acTUAL sin. To admit the contrary, 
᾿ς would be to overturn the very foundation the apostle had taken so 
_ much pains to lay, in chapters i.—iii., in order to make the conclu- 
sion entirely evident and unavoidable, that all men need gratuitous 
_ justification. 
2. To aver that men’s sins are not imputed to them, when they 
_ do not live under a revealed law, would be to contradict what the 
᾿ς immediate context itself must be considered as asserting. Who are 
those that have not sinned after the manner of Adam? The answer 
of those whom I am now opposing, is: ‘ They are those, who have 
only original sin or imputed sin charged to their account.’ But then 
I find great difficulty in this answer. By the supposition of many 
who make it, Adam’s first sin does become really and truly that of 
all his ἜΠΙΟΝ inasmuch as it is propagated to them in the way of 
‘natural generation. Yea, Augustine, Pres. Edwards, and many 
others, maintain a real physical unity of Adam with all his posterity; 
and hence they derive to all his posterity a participation in his sin. 
But if his sin be theirs in any proper sense, ὦ. ¢., ba really theirs by 
‘such a unity as is asserted; or even if it be theirs by mere imputation 
without this; then how is it that the sin of the ἄνομοι is (as Paul 
asserts) NOT like that of Adam? How can it be unlike it, when it 


ed OD es! BE POAT OPE 6k PS ON a 
SE rh a AE ον 


ΤᾺ PU alas Soe τὰς ἘΔ ἃ, τς Bd) WS Sd 8, 
αὐτῶν 


ae te 


et. 


ON UOT OU τιν με σας τ 


223 ROMANS V. 13. 


is the very same; either the very same in reality (as Augustine and 
his followers hold), or the very same putatively, as others suppose ? 
But, 

3. There is another difficulty. How can the sins of Adam be here 
asserted to be imputed to all his posterity, and yet their own personal 
sins be not at all reckoned? By the exegesis of these whose opinion 
I am now endeavouring to controvert, Paul is made to say, that God 
did not count to men their own personal and actual sins, ὁ. 6. to those 
who lived before the Mosaic law. By a parity of reason, then, the 
Gentiles at all times and every where, who are ἄνομοι, are freed from 
the imputation of their own transgressions; which would directly 
contradict the declarations of Paul. 

From this conclusion, however, Schott and Tholuck, who defend 
for substance the exegesis which I am calling in question, do in some 
measure revolt, and say to οὐκ Adoyz?ro must be assigned only a com- 
parative sense; that although the guilt of men who sinned against 
the law of nature, was not taken away absolutely, yet their aecount- 
ability for it was in a good measure superseded. To illustrate this, 
Tholuck refers us to ἀνοχῇ in Rom. iii. 26, and to ὑπεριδὼν ὁ Θεός in 
Acts xvii. 30. Both of these instances, however, relate to deferring 
punishment, not toa remission of accountability ; comp. 2 Pet. ii, 
8,9. Sucha remission of punishment would directly contradict 
what Paul has fully and strongly asserted, in Rom. ii. 6—16. 

And to what purpose is it to say, that men who were ἄνομοι were 
in a comparative sense not accountable to God for their own personal 
sins? This can mean neither more nor less, than that they were 
accountable in some degree, although not as highly so as those who 
were ἔννομα. But accountability being admitted (how can it be 
denied after reading Rom. ii. 6—16 7), then the argument is marred 
which those whom I am opposing deduce from the verses in question, 
They make these verses to say, that ‘the ἄνομοι are not accountable — 
for their own sins ; but inasmuch as they are still ¢reated as sinners, 


ability in some degree for the sins of the ἄνομοι, it forecloses such an — 
argument from the passage ; for it leaves it fully liable to the follow- — 
ing construction, viz., ‘Although men were held less accountable | 
and criminal, who lived before the Mosaic law, than those who lived — 
under this law, yet that they were still sinners, and were regarded as _ } 
such, is true ; for all were subjected to death,’ That they were sinners } 
in their own person, or actual offenders in a way different from that 


ROMANS Y. 13. : 223 


of Adam, is clear from what is said in ver. 14 respecting them. How 
then can Adam’s sin be here asserted to be theirs, and, by implica- 
tion, to be the only sin for which death came upon them j ? 

In such an interpretation, moreover, as that which I am now con- 
sidering, a very different sense is given to ἐλλογεῖσο from that which 
it will here consistently bear ; as we shall see in the sequel. 

Reiche states the argument thus: ‘ Positive punishment (like 
death) can be inflicted only for breach of positive law. Now no 
positive law threatening death, except in the case of Adam, was 
given before the Mosaic law. .Therefore all men who died during 
this interval, must have died by reason of punishment threatened to 
Adam being extended tothem.’ And in consonance with this view 
he construes vers. 13, 14, in general; although he seems to me far 
from maintaining consistency. ‘To this statement we may easily 
reply, and say (1) That the major proposition directly contradicts 
what the apostle has said in Rom.1. 82. 11. 14, 15.11.19. The 
apostle plainly makes no other difference between Jew and Gentile, 
than what is made by the respective degree of light which each 
enjoyed. The Jew is the more guilty, because he enjoyed better 
advantages and abused them. But all, both Jew and Gentile, he 


‘pronounces to be ἄξιο, ϑανάτου and ὑπόδικοι τῷ Θεῷ. How then can we 


assume that death is not threatened to any, except in consequence of 
a positive, t.e.,a revealed law? It is the very opposite of the apostle’s 


_ argument and of his explicit and repeated declarations. In Rom. νυ. 
- 14, moreover, Paul directly asserts that the penalty of death was 
- incurred by those who had πού sinned in the manner of Adam, ὁ. 6.» 
against express and positive precept. But Reiche makes the apostle 
here to mean, that they suffered on account of Adam’s transgression 
᾿ς and not their own; although he had just before strongly contended 
7 that πάντες ἡμαρτον must have an active sense, and mean that all had 


_ yoluntarily and in fact sinned. (2) The minor proposition is equally 


untrue, in respect to its real and essential meaning ; for of what im- 
_ portance is it, whether the law was positive or natural, so long as the 
declarations τ Rom. i, 32. ii. 14, 15. iii. 19, and the like remain ? 
_ How shall we admit positions which the apostle himself expressly 
᾿ς contradicts? (3) It follows, of course, that the conclusion from such 
_ premises must be erroneous, viz., ‘That all men from Adam to Moses, 
_ died merely because of the penalty threatened to Adam, and not by 
Εἴ Teason of their own sins. The reader will observe, that I do not 
_ here deny that in some sense the doctrine of this conclusion may be 


224 : 20MANS V. 13. 


true; but only that in the sense alleged it cannot possibly be made 
out satisfactorily from such premises. Ofcourse the exegesis of vers. 
13, 14 by Reiche, which is made in general to conform to such views, 
must be very questionable. 

Reiche himself earnestly remonstrates against the sentiment of 
Tholuck here, viz., that ‘death came upon men living between Adam 
and Moses, because of the vitiositas of which they partook, and which 
they derived from Adam.’ He asks in the way of remonstrance : 
‘Where is there one word here which says that death was the con- 
sequence of a sin inherited from Adam, and how is this here shown? 
But how much does he relieve the difficulty, by making death come 
upon all men without any other reason than that it does come? 
According to him, Adam set it in motion, and it kept on, from the 
momentum which he gave it, down to the time of Moses, irrespective 
of sin either original or actual? 

After all, this very limitation of the period, viz., from Adam to 
Moses, lies hard against the usual modes of exegesis here, which 
represent the apostle as labouring to show, not that men sinnedand 
therefore perished (as he had just asserted in ver. 12), but that they | 
perished merely because of their relation to Adam, either in conse- ' 
quence of propagated vitiosity, or else without any specific assignable 
reason, as Reiche avers. Why should the apostle stop within these : 
narrow limits? When the Mosaic Law was given, was it given to — 
all men, or only to about three millions out of six or seven hundred — 
millions of our race? Even from that time down to the present 
moment, has not immeasurably the greater portion of the human race 
been destitute of any revelation? How does their case differ, then, — 
from that of those between Adam and Moses? Not at all, sofaras — 
we can see. Why then should the apostle confine his assertion — 
merely to those between Adam and Moses? If his object be the | 
generalone supposed by the commentators in question, no good reason 
can be given for such a procedure. ? 

Indeed, such a method of illustration makes verses 13, 14, inap- | 
posite, in case we allow that πάντες ἥμαρτον means, that all men did of | 
themselves sin. ‘The γάρ at the beginning of ver. 14 shows, that | 
what follows is designed to illustrate and confirm what had just been | 
asserted; and this is not that all men die because of inherited viti- 
_osity, but because all have sinned. How Reiche then could strenu= 
ously defend this latter sentiment, and yet interpret verses 13, 14 a8 


ὦ 
᾿ 
᾿ 
, 
- 
a 


ROMANS Υ. 13. 225 


he has done, I am unable to see. It appears plainly to be in oppo- 
sition to the laws of philology and the nature of the case. 

I must regard the apostle then as designing, in verses 14, 15, to” 
illustrate and confirm the proposition that ᾿ all men have sinned and 
perished,’ by the introduction of a case that might be deemed doubtful 
by some of his readers, or be called in question. If he could show 
that no valid objection could be made to this, he of course might take 
it for granted that no objection would be made to the plainer parts 
of his position. And I regard him as referring to the period between 
Adam and Moses, βου it presented an obvious and striking case 
adapted to his purpose. But if his object was to establish the pro- 
position, that all men without revelation have died because of inherited 
corruption, or died merely because Adam introduced a fatal disease 
(as Reiche maintains), why should he make such a limitation? Or 
rather, we may well ask, why should he make any limitation at all’? 
We may well ask also: ‘ Whether, on the ground of the common 
theory, those who have a revelation do not partake of original sin as 
well as others? Whether they do not stand in the same relation to 
Adam as others? And if so, we may again inquire: What can be 
the object of Paul in limiting his remarks to those who lived between 
Adam and Moses? It cannot be, then, that his design here is, to 
prove the connection between imputed sin and death (as so many 
have assumed); for that connection is the same, if it exist at all, in 
all ages, nations, and circumstances; and one portion of time would 
be just as apposite as another to establish it, inasmuch as the deve- 
lopment is represented to be uniform and constant. ‘There was no 
more reason, surely, for Paul’s readers to doubt of imputedsin between 
Adam and Moses, than there was to doubt of it between Moses and 
Paul; nay, in some respects there was less, inasmuch as the evils 
suffered during the former:period were very great, and yet the actual 
sins were less, because there was less light. One might more naturally 
be inclined, then, in such a case to admit imputed sin, than in the 
case of men under the law. Yet, if the more usual exegesis be true, 
the apostle has selected the former period as the very one about which 
he expected there would be the most doubt. Can this be so? The 
nature of the case would seem to decide in the negative. 

But suppose now the question to be, as I have stated, whether men 


| _ ¢an sin and perish without law (a question very aie: raised after 


eee s declaration in iv. 15); then the period which Paul has selected 


_ for his purpose, is altogether apposite and striking. For this very 
BY ἂν 


920 ROMANS V. 18.. 


reason we may well suppose he chose it. On every side difficulties 
_start up against the other view—difficulties philological and theolo- 
“ gical—difficulties arising from incongruity, ineptness, and contradic- 
tion of previously avowed sentiment and the nature of accountability. 
That the sinning of men had a connection with the offence of Adam, 
and that this was in some way the cause or occasion of their sinning, 
is what (as I have before stated) I do not doubt the apostle here 
admits. But as he has asserted in verse 12 that death passed on all, 
BECAUSE ALL SINNED, £0 here he confirms what he has said; asthe 
γάρ plainly shows. 

If one asks, as Reiche does, why we should suppose the apostle 
here to assert again what he had so often asserted before, viz., that 
all men are sinners, the answer is easy. The subject here comes up _ 
in a new light, viz., the connection between death and sin. It is 
therefore a new and forcible addition to the arguments already em- 
ployed. That death is universal, cannot be denied; at least this is 
certain in regard to the death of the body; and that theapostlehas _ 
this part of the penalty against sin here particularly in his eye, will ~ 
hardly be doubted, because it is of so plain and palpable a nature _ 
that none can deny the truth of his allegation. Yet this does not 
oblige us to suppose that other parts of the penalty are designedly 
excluded, because this plain and palpable part of it is here specifi- τὸ 
cally made prominent. By no means. If then death is universal, does 
it not follow that the cause of it, 7. e., sin, is universal too? Of course 
the argument relates to all the can and do sin, and thus come under 
the penalty in question. Thus both the guilt and misery of our race 
are here brought into the account, and placed in opposition to the 
grace and salvation of the gospel; and thus the contrast designed to 
be made by the whole representation is greatly heightened. But put 
the case, that no proper sin of Adam’s posterity is here in question, 
as Reiche maintains; or that only imputed sin is in question; then 
what follows? Surely that Christ delivers us from no sin, or from — 
only imputed sin and the death which that brings; but nothing fur- — 
ther; at least nothing further can here be made out from the words — 
of the apostle, on their ground of interpretation. Yetinver.16 Paul | 
asserts, that our deliverance is from πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων; which aN 
disproves entirely that mode of exegesis, which confines ἁμαρτία here | 
to imputed sin or to mere vitiositas. | 

I have only to add that the supposition of men’s own personal sins | 
not being reckoned to them, while they are considered as perishing 


ROMANS V. 18. 227 


for ever by the mere imputation of another’s sin, is a position so revolt- 
ing with respect to the justice, and goodness, and impartiality of the 
sovereign Judge, “ who will render to every man according to his 
works,” that it should not be made out from constructive evidence ; 

it requires most ample and satisfactory evidence and argument to 
support it. 

The phrase ἄχρι νόμου ἁμαρτία ἦν ἐν κόσμῳ, appears on the whole, 

then, to be only an affirmation respecting a particular class of men 
(whom some might think it difficult to prove to be sinners), of some- 
thing which in the preceding clause had been affirmed of all men, 
πάντες ἥμαρτον. I must consider it as illustrating and confirming 
this latter expression, by showing that even that class of men are 
sinners, whom one might be prone to exempt from such a charge ; 
and especially so, after what'the apostle had just said in iv. 15. Any 
other mode of expounding this makes the γάρ irrelative and out of 
_ place, when it is once admitted that πάντες ἡμαρτον affirms the proper 
sin of Adam’s posterity. And to construe verses 13, 14 as having 
relation only to imputed sin, comes virtually to the representation of 
Christ’s death as a salvation only from imputed sin; which would 
amount to a virtual contradiction of ver. 16. 

‘Awagria δὲ. . . - νόμου, although sin is not made account of where 
there is no law; an expression which has given occasion to great per- 
plexity and difficulty. This has arisen, however, in a great measure, 
from construing éAdocyz?ras.as though it were connected with Θεός, as 
the agent by whom the counting or imputing is to be done. The 
difficulties of such an interpretation have already been stated, in the 
consiilerations presented above. Bretschneider (Dogmatik. II. 49. 
edit.3) seems to have suggested the true solution of the phraseology; 
’RAdoysiras is not imputatur a Deo, but refertur ab hominibus ad 
peccata, ὃ, ὁ... habetur, agnoscitur peccatum.? The like views did 
Calvin and Luther entertain relative to the expression. The former 
says, that [homines] sibi nihil imputarent in peccatum, nisi [lege] 
coacti. .. sine legis stimulis in socordiam se demergunt ; ὁ, e., ‘men 
_ do not count themselves as sinners, and are not alarmed for their 
guilt, unless the law first excites and quickens their consciences.’ So 


: - Luther renders ἐλλογεῖτα, by achten, to regard, to have respect to. 
To the like purpose Heumann, Camerarius, Photius (in Gicumenius), 


_ Schoetigen, Koppe. The words of Photius deserve to be recited. 
_ “When [the apostle] says ἐφ᾽ ᾧ σάντες ἥμαρτον, lest some one should 
___ reply and ask: ‘ How then could men sin where there was no law? 


228 ROMANS Vv. 13. 


For thou thyself hast said above, that where there is no law there 
is no transgression; and if no transgression, then surely no sin. 
How then could death pass upon all men, because all have sinned? 
Lest therefore some one might make such an objection, Paul antici- 
pates and solves the doubt, and says ὅτι ἦν καὶ πρὸ τοῦ νόμου ; for sin 
was committed, and what is committed must have an existence.” To 
which remarks of Photius, G2cumenius after citing them adds: “See 
the exactness of the apostle. That we might not think ourselves to 
be wronged because we die on account of another, he says ἁμαρτία 
ἦν ἐν κόσμῳ although it was disregarded (<i xa/ μὴ ἐλογίζετο) ; therefore 
we die not only because of Adam, but also because of sin.” ‘Tho- 
luck says, that ‘to construe ¢Adoys?ras in such a way, is doing violence 
to the word τ᾿ but he acknowledges very frankly on a preceding page, 
that ‘nothing can be objected to such an interpretation as that of 
Photius on the score of language ; and that the thought itself is not 
foreign to the circle of Pauline ideas.’ Surely when ἐλλογεῖται is 
rendered (as by Bretschneider) habetur, imputatur [ut peccatum ] 
ab hominibus, this is no more a departure from the meaning of ἐλλο- 
γεῖται, than to render it imputatur a Deo. Whether Θεός or ἄνθρωποι 
is to be understood here, must be decided of course by the nature of 
the sentiment. And as to éAdoyeizas, why should attributing to it the 
sense of regarding, accounting, esteeming, &c., be called strange ? 
inasmuch as this word accords as to both sense and origin altogether 
with λογίζομαι, which often occurs with such a meaning ; 6. g., Acts 
xix. 27. Rom. ii. 26. vi. 11. viii. 36. ix. 8. xiv. 14, 1 Cor. iv. 1 

2 Cor. x. 2. xi. 5, et sepe. So 20, Gen. xxxi. 15. 1 Sam. i. 13. 
Job xli. 27 (19). The ellipses after éAroye?ra: may be supplied by 
εἰς ἁμαρτίαν OY ὡς ἁμαρτία, both methods of construction being common 
after λογίζομαι, aS any one may see by consulting the above instances. 
That ἐλλογέω occurs (Philem. ver. 18) in the sense of impute, is 
no more a reason why it should have that particular meaning in 


the verse before us, than it is that λογίζομαι should always have — 


the sense of impute, because, as we readily concede, it often means 
to impute; but we know also, that oftener still it means to compute, 


to regard, to make account of. And even in Phil. verse 18, the | 
sense is altogether good when we translate τοῦτό μοι ἐλλόγει, reckon | 


that to me, or put that to my account; which conveys exactly the 


idea intended, viz., that the writer would be responsible for the wrong — Ι 


done by Onesimus. 
“ What views,” exclaims Gléckler in his recent Commentary, 


ee κυ οοοο 


ROMANS V. 18, 229 


“must men have of God, in order to say that sin is not reckoned 
by hin? Can God regard it as a trifle, and unworthy of notice? 
It is erroneous interpretation, which has led men to explain ἐλλογεῖται 


_in a way so contrary to its meaning here and to the nature of Chris- 


tianity. It is men only who hold or can hold sin as not worthy to 
be made account of.” Indeed it must be conceded, that the explan- 
ation which he rejects contains something very opposite to the tenor 
of Paul’s reasoning in Rom. i.— iii. 

That the sentiment derived-from such an exegesis as that which I 
have adopted, is not foreign to the writings of Paul, is quite clear 
from comparing Rom. vii. 7—11 and iii. 20. In the former of these 
passages, the law is represented as greatly exciting and aggravating 
the unholy desires of the carnal heart by its restraints and disclo- 
sures; so that “ without the law sin is death,” 7. ¢., it is little esti- 
mated and felt. In the latter, Paul declares that “ by the law is the 
knowledge of sin.” How well this accords with ἁμαρτία δὲ οὐκ ἐλλο- 
γεῖται μὴ ὄντος νόμου, needs hardly to be suggested. 

I admit that a modified sense of the expression is to be regarded 
as the true one, viz., that it is not to be considered so absolute as to 
convey the idea that zo sense of sin existed among the heathen in 
any measure; for this would contradict fact, and contradict what Paul 
says in chap. ii. 14,15. But then the modification is of just the same 
nature as is to be received in respect to Rom. vil. 7—11, i. 30, and 
also of John xv. 22—24, where the Saviour says, that if he had not 
come and spoken to the Jews, “‘ they would not have had sin.” But 
the sense of zAAoye?ro, as maintained by Tholuck and others, @. ¢., a 
modified sense in respect to the account which God makes of sin, 
does not answer the purpose at all for which it is intended by them. 
If God made any account of men’s own sins before the law, then 
imputed sin is not the only thing for which men die. Of course the 
argument that they labour to establish, is given up. The assertion 
considered as absolute,viz., that God made no account at all of men’s 
own sins, who were not under the law, is contradicted by all the pre- 
ceding part of the epistle. 

Pres. Edwards has given the verse before us a peculiar turn: “ For 
before the law of Moses was given, mankind were all looked upon by 
the great Judge as sinners, by corruption, and guilt derived from 
Adam’s violation of the original law of works; which’ shows that 
the original universal rule of righteousness i is not the law of Moses; 
for if so, there would have been no sin imputed before that was 


230 ROMANS V. 14. 


given, because sin is not imputed where there is no law,” (Orig. 
Sin, p. 275. Worces. edit.). He supposes that the main design of the 
apostle is here to show, that the Jews could not claim their law as 
the only criterion of right and wrong; and in order to do this, Paul 
shows that men were condemned on account of imputed sin, before 
the giving of the law. But besides the forced construction which 
this introduces, it also obliges us to bring in here a subject of consi- 
deration that the apostle seems for the present to have dismissed from 
his mind, viz., the confident reliance of the Jews on their law and 
their boasting of it. In order to make out the interpretation of Ed- 
wards, it must be’shown that the apostle here asserts the existence of 
another law antecedent to that of Moses, to which men were account- 
able. This he had done in chap. ii. 14, 15; but here it is not to his 
purpose to repeat it. He says merely, that men were sinners ante- 
cedently to the law of Moses, although in a state of nature they 
made but little account of sin; they were sinners, notwithstanding 
they made light of it; and they incurred the sentence of death, 
although they had not, like Adam, sinned against a revealed and 
express law. Now this goes to confirm the assertion in ver. 12, viz., 
πάντες ἡμαρτον ; inasmuch as it serves to show that a part of mankind 
were actually under sentence of death, about whom doubts might 
most easily arise. And as it seems to be spoken for this very pur- 
pose, so we may acquiesce in such an intrepretation of the language 
as shows that it is directly subservient to the purposes of the writer. 
(14) ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐβασίλευσεν Movotws, yet or nevertheless death reigned 
from Adam unto Moses. ᾿Αλλά, tamen, attamen—EBacidevoe, reigned, 
means was predominant, exercised uncontrolled sway or power. 
The writer designs by this word to express, in a strong manner, the 
universal dominion of death among men. But what death? The 
same, I would answer, as before ; but still, I should be disposed to 
believe, as has been remarked above, that he had in his eye here a 
particular part of what is comprehended under the generic term 
death ; in other words, that temporal death was the special object to 
which he here adverts. The reason, as before stated, for this is, 
that temporal death is a palpable part of the execution of the sen- 
tence, so palpable that all must admit it: and to some such unde- 
niable evidence does the writer seem to appeal, for he appears to 
regard what he states as a thing that will not be denied. I do not 
look upon this sense of ϑάνατος here as a departure from the preceding 
one, in any important respect ; for should it be construed as referring - 


πιο τον 


ον ee a ee 


ROMANS v. 14. 231 


to a palpable part of the death threatened, this, by its relations to 
the other parts of the same, involves or implies them also. So 
Tholuck, Comp. p. 187. 2 edit. 


᾿ Καὶ ἐπὶ. . - ᾿Αδάμ, even over those who had not sinned after the 


 similitude of Adam’s transgression. 


A part of the text itself is here a matter of dispute. Some Latin 
Codices, also Origen, Cyril, Rufin, Tertullian, Victorinus, Sedulius, 
and Ambrosiaster, omit the μή here. Semler, Mill, and some others, 
have done the same. But nearly all the Greek manuscripts (three 
only, and these a secunda manu, excepted), the Syriac version, the 
Vulgate, and many of the most conspicuous Greek and Latin 
fathers, 6. g., Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophilus, Ireneeus, Je- 
rome, Ambrose, Augustine, and others, insert it. The weight of 
authority on the side of inserting it seems, therefore, to be quite 


conclusive. Moreover, there is internal evidence of its genuineness. 


Toellner, Koppe, and Schott, have well remarked, that the use of 
καί here before ἁμοωρτήσαντας, intimates that something unusual or 
unexpected was designed on the part of the writer. Accordingly 
while one would expect to find him saying simply (which would 
apparently make a much more facile and seemingly unexceptionable 
sense) ἐβασίλευσε. . . ἐπὶ τοὺς ἁμαρτήσαντας, we find him saying, 
ἐβασίλευσε... καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας. Besides all this, the 
proof that all have sinned requires μή; otherwise, those who had no 
positive precepts might, in the minds of some, be exempted. But 
now, those who have sinned like Adam, ¢. ¢., against positive precept, 
and those who have sinned against the internal law, make up the all 
men. 

Ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι is like the Hebrew 22 (confidenter); i. e, ἃ 


"noun with a preposition is employed instead of an adverb. So the 
_ Hebrew O78 23 273, Dan. x. 16, is rendered in the Septuagint 
. ὡς ὁμοίωσις υἱοῦ ἀνθρώπου. Inallrespects ἐπὶ σῷ ὁμοιώματι is equivalent 


to ὁμοίως; so that ὁμοίως τῷ "Adc. παροαβάντι would express the sense; 
as would ὥσπερ "Addu παρέβη. Comp. ὁμοίωμα in Rom. 1. 23. vill. ὃ. 


Phil. ii. 7. 


As to the sense of the passage; by mentioning those who lived 


before the law of Moses as not having sinned after the manner of 
Adam, there is a plain implication that those who lived under the 
law did sin after the manner, or in the likeness of Adam. But the 
likeness im question did not consist in this, that the very same pre- 
_ ¢epts were given to them and were transgressed by them; it con- 


232 ROMANS Y. 14. 


sisted plainly in the fact that they, like Adam, had positive or revealed 
precepts as the rule of duty. Consequently those who sinned, but 
yet did not sin in the like way (and such are described in verses 13, 
14), must have sinned without positive revealed precepts. Such are 
described also in ii. 14, 15. 

Reiche construes this assertion as having respect only to the dif- 
ferent mode of punishment; viz., ‘Adam sinned against express 
precept and therefore died; but his posterity die without having so 
done.’ But if this were the sentiment, the apostle must have said, 
καὶ ἐπὶ rods μὴ ἀποθανόντας. .. τῷ ϑανάτῳ κ. τ΄. A. 

Origen, Augustine, Melancthon, Beza, Pres. Edwards, and others, 
have construed the clause μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας x. τ. d., as having respect 
to infants only. But Calvin rejects this interpretation: “Malo... 
interpretari de iis qui sine lege peccaverunt.” Nevertheless he thinks 
infants may be included. But the ground of this is, that he con- 
strues πάντες ἥμαρτον and ἁμαξετία ἦν ev κόσμῳ as referring to the sinning 
of all men in and by Adam. The remark of J. A. Turretin is 
directly to the point: “Ex scopo apostoli serieque sermonis patet, 
hic agi etiam de adultis omnibus qui ab Adamo usque ad Mosem 
vixerunt. Etenim si de solis infantibus ageretur, cur intra id spati- 
um se contineret, quod inter Adamum et Mosem fuit? Nam infan- 
tium omnium, et ante et post legem, eadem est ratio.” Accordingly, 
the interpretation of Augustine is generally rejected, so far as I 
know, by distinguished critics of all parties at the present day. 

I am aware that it has been sometimes alleged, in regard to μὴ 
ἁμαρτήσαντας xt. r., that the dissimilitude here affirmed consists in 
the fact that Adam was an actual sinner, and others (to whom refer- 
ence is here made) sinners only ly imputation. But such an inter- 
pretation has been shown above, as it seems to my mind, to be incon- 
sistent with the tenor of the passage, and with the declarations of the 
Old and New Testament in relation to this subject. How can it be 
in any way rendered probable, or even plausible, that men from the 
time of Adam to that of Moses were sinners only by imputation ? 
It is fairly out of question. An attempt to establish such an inter- 
pretation must surely fail. or if such an imputation be made out, 
by virtue of the unity of Adam’s posterity with himself (and this is 
the ground on which it is asserted), then it would follow, of course, 
that their sin is Nor different from his, but the very same; for if 
they were in him, and sinned in and with him, surely their sin is not 
different from, but the same with his: which is what the apostle here 


ROMANS V. 12. 233 


denies. Or if his sin is merely imputed to them without their actu- 
ally participating at all in it, then we may ask, in the first place, 
how it can be said of them that they “all sinned?” And secondly, 
if it be said that they sinned in, dy, and through Adam, then, so far 
as their sin is concerned, how does it differ from his? There is but 
one act of sin but the guilt of it is divided among countless millions; 
or if this statement be rejected, then the alternative must be taken, 
viz., that the guilt of it is multiplied and repeated as often as there 
are individuals belonging to the human race. In either case there 
remains only the actual sin of Adam, and so far as this belongs to 
his posterity in any sense, either real or putative, so far the sin is not 
different from that of Adam, but the same. It is only when we con- 
strue the passage as referring to men’s own personal sins, that the 
difficulty can be removed. 

ς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος, who is a type of him that was to come. 


Τύσος signifies, (1) in its original and most literal acceptation, an 


impress, a nute or mark made by impression, sculpture, beating, &e.; 
inasmuch as it comes from τέτυπα the second Perfect of σύστω. In 
this sense it is employed in John xx. 25. Hence, (2) It means ea- 
ample, pattern, model; as in Acts vii. 44. Heb. viii. 5. Ex. xxv. 
(where the Hebrew has 235), (3) It means example, model, in a 
good sense; 6. g., Phil. i. 17. 1 Thess. i. 7. 2 Thess. iii. 9. 1 Tim. iv. 
12. Tit. ii. 7. 1 Pet. v. 3; but sometimes an example fur the sake of 
warning, not of imitation, as in 1 Cor. x. 6, comp. verse 11. (4) It 
means image, something which is a resemblance of some other thing 
supposed or real; as in Acts vil. 43. Amos vy. 26 (Heb. Dey). In 
this last sense, ¢.¢., that of image or resemblance, not in a physical 
sense but in a causal one (if I may so speak), is Adam called a σύπος 
of Christ. The appropriate scriptural sense of type is, a person or 
thing, which by special appointment or design of an overruling Pro- 
vidence, is intended to symbolize, or present a likeness of some other 
and future person or thing. I understand the word τύπος in such a 
sense here; 7. ¢., | understand it as implying, that it was by special 
divine arrangement and appointment, that Adam was made in par- 
ticular respects to present an antithetic image of what Christ was 
to’ be. 

That Christ is meant by τοῦ μέλλοντος, 15 clear from verse 15, seq. 
where he is by name brought into comparison with Adam. The 
ellipsis after μέλλοντος, t. €., the noun with which this participle agrees 


34 ROMANS Y. 14. 


by implication, seems to be ᾿Αδάμ, viz., the second Adam or ἐσχατος 
᾿Αδάμ, as he is called in 1 Cor. xv. 45. 

But in what sense, ὦ, ¢., how far, is the first Adam here considered 
as an image of the second. A question of no small importance, in- 
asmuch as by the answer to it must, in no small measure, our views 
of the general meaning of verses 12—19 be regulated. 

An answer somewhat in detail, would occupy too much space to 
be inserted here. I have therefore thrown it into the form of an 
Excursus, which the reader may consult, in respect to the illustration, 
and support of the following sentiments, which contain the principal 
results of what I have there exhibited; viz. 

I. The τύπος asserted of Adam, in respect to Christ, is not to be 
taken in’ the widest and fullest sense that the word itself might be 
capable of, but in a sense which has many important limitations. 
For, (1) The whole is contrast ; 7. ¢., the τύπος is antithetic. In many 
cases, ἃ τύσος in the Old Testament is of the same nature with the 
ἀντιτύπος in the New Testament. But here, the whole is most plainly 
antithetic; on the one hand are the evils done and occasioned, and 
on the other are the good done and the blessings procured, (2) The 
degree or measure of the evils occasioned by Adan,’ is not the point 
of τύπος in respect to Christ; for this measure is declared to be far 
exceeded by the blessings which Christ has procured; “grace super- 
abounds.” “ Many offences are forgiven,” ver. 16. (3) It is not the 
person of Adam as such, which is compared with the person of Christ 
as such, in order to point out any personal resemblances. It is the 
AoTs of each and the CONSEQUENCES of what each has done, that are 
the objects of a comparison by the apostle; it is the παρακοή or 
παράπτωμα and κατάκριμα of Adam, and the effects of the same, which 
are compared with the ὑπακοή and δικαίωμα of Christ and the effects 
of these. (4) One sin of one individual, viz., Adam, was the occa- 
sion of evil to all men; while, on the other hand, many sins are for- 
given on account of one individual, viz. the Lord Jesus Christ. 

We have seen the antithetic nature of the τύσος here, and the 
points of dissimilitude between Adam and Christ; let us now see 
what are the points of actual similitude. 

II, The actual and principal point of similitude is, that each indi- 
vidual respectively, viz.. Adam and Christ, was the cause or occasion, 
in consequence of what he did, of greatly affecting the whole human 
race; although in an opposite way. Adam introduced sin and misery 


if 


ROMANS ν. 14. 235 


into the world; and in consequence of this all men are, even without 
their own concurrence, subjected to many evils here; they are born 
entirely destitute of a disposition to holiness ; and this condition and 
their circumstances render it certain that they will sin, and will al- 
ways sin IN ALL THEIR ACTS OF A MORAL NATURE, until their 
hearts are renewed by the Spirit of God ; and of course, all men are 
born in a state in which they are greatly exposed to the second death, 
or death in the highest sense of the term, and in which this death 
will certainly come upon them, unless there be an interposition of 
merey through Christ. On the other hand; Christ introduced 
righteousness or justification, and all the blessings spiritual and tem- 
poral which are connected with a probationary state under a dispen- 
sation of grace and with the pardoning mercy of God. A multitude 
of blessings, such as the day and means of grace, the common boun- 
ties of Providence, the forbearance of God to punish, the calls and 


warnings of mercy, the proffersof pardon, &c., are procured by Christ 


for all men without exception, and without any act of concurrence 
on their part; while the higher blessings of grace, actual pardon and 
everlasting life, are indeed proffered to all, but are actually bestewed 
only upon those who repent and believe. 

In this way we see, quite plainly, that Adam was a τύπος of Christ 
because what he did affected the whole of the human race, to a certain 
extent, even without any concurrence or act of their own; it brought 
upon them more or less of the evils threatened to sin, and put them 
all in imminent hazard of the highest measure of the penalty, even 
that of everlasting death. As the antithesis of this, Christ is repre- 
sented as procuring blessings for all the human race, to a certain 
extent, even without any concurrence or act of their own; and he 
has also procured. by his blood, and proffers fully and freely to all 
eternal redemption from the highest evils which the divine law would 
inflict upon sinners. The extent of the influence of Adam, is there- 
fore a proper τύπος of that of Christ. Each of these individuals, by 


what he did, affected our whole race without any concurrence of 


theirs, to a certain degree; the one has placed them in a condition, 
in which they actually suffer many evils, and in which, by their own 
voluntary acts, they are peculiarly exposed to the most awful of all 
evils; the other has actually bestowed many and important blessings 
on all without exception, and proffers to all the opportunity to secure 
the greatest of allblessings. Here then is antithetic σύσος of the like 
extent, in both cases. 


236 ROMANS V. 15. 


The superabounding of gospel grace, which is insisted on so em- 
phatically in vers. 15—17, consists (as is stated in ver. 16) in the 
fact, that the death of Christ procures pardon for the numerous 
offences which we commit (πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων), t. 6.7 the death of 
Christ had respect to a multitude of offences; while the effects of 
Adam’s sin have respect only to one offence, viz., that of eating the 
forbidden fruit. In other words; the death of Christ as a remedy, 
is far more powerful and efficacious than the sin of Adam was as a 
means of corruption and misery. 

For additional considerations which may serve to explain and con- 
firm the views here given of τύπος, I must refer the reader to Excursus 
|W a 

One more remark on the phrase ὃς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος. Calvin 
and Tholuck regard this expression as the apodosis of ver. 12, Calvin; 
“‘ Hee particula posita est vice alterius membri . . . perinde ergo ac- 
cipias ac si scriptum esset: Sicut per unum hominem intravit pecca- 
tum in universum mundum, et per peccatum mors; ita per unum 
hominem rediit justitia, et per justitiam vita.” To the same purpose 
Tholuck in his Commentary. And indeed it cannot be denied that 
there is some ground for this. The apostle had said, that sin and 
death entered the world by Adam; he now says, that Adam is a 
τύπος of Christ (an antithetic τύπος is of course meant); by which 
must be intimated, that Christ is in like manner the author of justi- 
fication and happiness. This idea, virtually and by way of implica- 
tion, contains what is expressed in the apodosis ; which however is 
fully and formally given out only in verses 18, 19. 


ROMANS Vv. 15. 237 


CHAP. V. 15—17. 


‘THE general object of these three verses is to magnify the greatness of gospel grace, by 
contrasting it with the evils occasioned by Adam’s sin (ver. 16); to show that while all men 
are sufferers on account of Adam, it is only to that degree in which one sin could affect them, 
while, on the other hand, the free gift of Christ extends to the pardoning of a multitude of 
offences (ver.,18). Nor is pardon of many offences all which the gospel achieves; for if 
Adam’s offence did bring death on all his posterity, or subject them all to more or less of evil, 
then it is surely more credible still, that the grace of Christ will bestow blessings on all, and 
especially that it will perfect the work of pardon, and secure the blessings of eternal life to all 
who have obtained it. There is then plainly a gradation of sentiment in these three verses. 
In ver. 15 we have the general idea that grace abounds beyond any evil brought upon us by 
Adam. In ver. 16 it is specifically declared, that the evii inflicted is only such as corresponds 
‘to one offence, while the good bestowed consists in pardon extended to many offences. In ver. 
17 we have the assurance, that pardon shall be crowned with everlasting life. All these points 
of dissimilitude or antithesis, the reader will easily see have a direct bearing on the first part of 
the present and the last part of the fourth chapter, and go to illustrate and enforce the idea of 
the greatness, the certainty, and the extent of gospel blessings, in some form or other. These verses 
of course must serve to correct any apprehension that the reader might have from the mention 
of τυπος, that equality or similitude in all respects was intended to be asserted, in regard to the 
respective influence of Adam and Christ. In pointing out the particulars of dissimilitude and in- 
equality, the apostle has limited the signification of τύπος, and guarded his readers against excess 
in the application of the word; while, at the same time, he co-operates with the design of the pre- 
ceding context, and helps to confirm the faith and hope of the believer. 

It follows, that we must exclude the particulars named by the apostle in these verses, from the 
idea of similitude or equality, as indicated by τύπος, οὐ the present occasion. How often the 
ovx ws here has been forgotten, in the parallels which have been drawn between the first and 
second Adam, noone who has read theology extensively needs to be reminded. It should also 
be here particularly remarked, that the sentiment which attributes to the grace of Christ good 
which is far greater than the evil occasioned by Adam's offence, lies upon the very face of verses 
15—17, and should never be overlooked. What we should be in ourselves, as the fall of Adam 
has left us, is one thing ; what our condition now is, through the grace of Christ, is another and 
very different one. When we maintain, then, that our present state, depraved and ruined as in 
itself it is, 7s more eligible as to securing final salvation, than that of Adam was while on his first 
probation, let it not be said that we deny or extenuate the evil consequences of the fall. By no 
means ; but let this be said, viz., that after the example of Paul we represent grace as superabound- 
ing over all the evils introduced by the apostacy. And is not this true? Yea, is it not strongly 
and repeatedly asserted in the chapter before us ? 

One point more deserves special notice here. Paul undertakes ex professo to point out in these 
verses, as has been observed, the principal features of dissimilitude or inequality between the type 
and antitype. Ifnowit be true, as some confidently maintain, that the many on whom blessings 
are bestowed, means only the elect in Christ; and tie many who suffer on account of Adam’s sin, 
means all mankind without exception; then how can we suppose that the apostle would have here 
neglected to mention this οὐχ ws, é. 6., this point of dissimilitude? A point surely of not less mag- 
nitude, interest, or importance, than any one which he has mentioned. So far is he, however, 
from pointing out such a prominent feature of dissimilitude, that he has taken a course directly the 
reverse of this, as it would seem; such an one, at any rate, as could scarcely fail to mislead more 
or less of his. readers, provided his design be in reality that whichis alleged. Does he name the 
mass of men who are injuriously affected by the sin of Adam οἱ πολλοί in ver. 15? In the very 
same verse he calls those on whom Christ bestows favours tovr πολλοὺς. Does he again call the 
first class (in ver. 18) πάντες ἄνθρωποι In the same verse he names the second class πάντες 
ἄνθρωποι. Does he again call the first class ot πολλοί, in ver. 19 ? The very same designation he 
there again applies tothe second. Nocommon principle of philology, then, can of itself justify us 
in making an immeasurable distinction here as to numbers, while the apostle (whose specific object 
here is to point out the dissimilitudes of the two cases), has not given us any intimation by the 
language which he employs, that such a distinction is here intended to be designated by him. 


238 ROMANS V. 15. 


That we are embarrassed in our theological system, unless we introduce such a distinction here, 
is surely no legitimate proof that the apostle must have argued as we do. Assumption of what 
we may think he ought to say in a case like this, where ex.pro/esso he is pointing out dissimilitudes, 
and where he has omitted tosay what we may expect he would have said, may possibly satisfy 
the minds ofsome who are disposed to reason a priori on this subject ; but how can this answer the 
demands of philological and hermeneutical investigation ? 

In a word, had Paul meant what some ascribe to him here, how could he do otherwise than say, 
* And not as the number affected by the sin of Adam, is the number affected by the grace of 
Christ ; for all men without exception, were condemned through the sin of Adam, while the elect 
only were the subject of blessings through the grace of Christ?’ This, or something which would 
be in effect like to this, we must naturally suppose that the apostle would have said, if he meant 
what is ascribed to him. But then, if he had thus spoken, his assertion would amount to a de- 
claration that sin superabounds over grace; directly contrary to what he is labouring to establish, 
viz., the superabounding of grace over sin. Can any thing be plainer, then, than that the sentiment 
here attributed to Paul, viz., universality of meaning as to οἱ πολλοί in the first case, and partiul 
extent only in the second, is incongruous with the evident design of the writer? 

The difficulty that seems to arise in respect to wriversal salvation, by the natural exposition of 
Paul’s language, is only an apparent nota real one. It isonly when,on the one hand, we view 
all mankind as absolutely and unconditionally given over.to the whole extent of the penalty of 
death on account of Adam, instead of considering them as actually incurring a part, and as ex- 
posed to and in imminent danger of the whole; and then on the other, regard Christ as having 
actually bestowed eternal life on all thus exposed, instead of having bestowed more or less of the 
blessings procured by him on all, and eternal life only on all who actually believe; if is only in 
such a cage, 1 say, that anything of consequence can be made out to favour the doctrine of univer- 
sal salvation. But no rules of interpretation oblige us to embrace such an exegesis. 7’he NATURE 
of gospel-grace, as contrasted with the evil effects of Adam’s sin, is the grand theme. Why is not 
the great object of the writer answered, when he has shown, that all men have gained more by the 
grace of the gospel, than they have lost by the offence of Adam? Or why, because the writer 
particularizes (as usual) some of the highest blessings and evils on both sides, should all inferior 
blessings and evils be excluded from his meaning? When it is an actual fact that the grace of 
Christ does confer many important favours on all men without exception, why should we, why need 
we, limit the declarations of the apostle to only a small part of men? The interpretation which I 
defend has the manifest advantage, as it seems to me, of comporting with σέ, as well as with the 
philology of the passage. It is no more true that all men suffer the whole of everlasting death, 
than it is that all men obtain the whole of everlasting life. But all suffer more or less of the sen- 
tence, in the first case; they enjoy more or less of the blessings in the second. Beyond this, all 
are in imminent peril, in the first case; to all salvation is proffered in the second. Why are not 
the demands of the passage answered, when the nature of the two things is fully and respectively 
disclosed? But in case we resort to what actually happens, we may then advance to a certain 
extent, both as to evil inflicted and good bestowed. If we look beyond, and take a general sur- 
vey of the nature of each dispensation, we find that the pit is open on the one hand, and heayen on 
the other. It depends now onthe choice of men, whetherthey will advance to theright orto the left. 
The universality, the greatness, the certainty of gospel-salvation to all who will accept the prof- 
fered good, i.e., the true nature and principle of all this, is altogether and strikingly illustrated and 
confirmed by the passage before us. 

It belongs to those who defend the limilation of οἱ πολλοέ in regard to blessings, toshow how 
the great point which the apostle urges throughout the passage before us, viz., the supera- 
bounding of grace, is made out by him on the ground which they assume. This they have a 
right to insist on, who are of the opinion that οἱ πολλοί must mean the same in both cases. If 
the former should say, ‘It is made out as to the elect ;’ then the question will be whether the 
elect are the predominant party, the great mass? I do not undertake to say that they will 
not eventually be so; but when the apostle wrote (and even down to the present time), all 
might say as Jesus did, ‘Strait is the gate and narrow the way, and few there be that find it.” 

Lesides, if a euperabcoanding of grace over ein as to the elect only, is here the question, then, 
to be consistent, only the elect con be taken in the counterpart, ἡ, ¢., the apostle must be sup- 
pored to speak only of the elect here as injured by the sin of Adam. And this, difficult as it 


ii cet a ti Nii δ. el tl i i rl i a es 


ROMANS V. 15. 23%) 


would be to render it probable, would be a more eligible and consistent interpretation than tke 
other. How can the two respective members of a comparison or similitude, or (if one pleases) 
dissimilitude or antithesis, be so immeasurably disproportionate as the exegesis that I have been 
examining makes them? Even if we can get no satisfaction from this passage, without assuming 
such premises, I do not see how we can bring ourselves to assume them. "Whenever the mind 
is thus forced upon conclusions contrary to the nature of the language, and against the tenor of 
the surrounding context and the apparent aim cf the writer, it must after all remain in a waver- 
ing, uncertain, conjectural state. It is much better to give up the expectation of finding the true 
sense, than thus to do violence to the laws of interpretation. 

One remark more should be made. This is, that the superabounding of the grace now in ques- 
tion, is its superabounding over the evils occasioned by Adam’s fall. It goes far beyond these. 
It embraces the πολλὰ παραπτώματα of men, verse 16. It exceeds even the sins that are com- 

_Iitted under the law (verse 20), great and grievous as they are. 


(15) παράπτωμα, offence, fall, viz., the first sin of Adam. That 
only one sin, and this altogether peculiar as to its effects, is here 
taken into view by the apostle, seems clear from verses 16, 17, 18.— 
Χάρισμνα, favour, benefit, good bestowed on us or done for us. 

Ei γάρ, for tf, does not imply uncertainty here, but. concession. 
The shape of the argument stands thus: ‘ Granting (as we must do) 
that the many [all] die [come under sentence of death] through 
Adam or by means of him; much more must we allow, &c. The 
conditional sentence here, preceded by &, is what grammarians name 
the absolute conditional, viz., that in which the Indic. stands in the 
protasis and apodosis. So here, ἀσέθανον----ἐπερίσσευσε. In such cases 
the protasis is assumed as being conceded; New Testament Gramm. 
§ 129. 8. α. Τάρ is here obviously γάρ confirmantis,—' Evég refers of 
course to ᾿Αδάμ. 

Οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον, the many died, 7. e., all men came under sentence 
of death. πολλοί here is exchanged'in verse 18 for πάντας ἀνθρώπους ; 
this therefore is doubtless the meaning of woAAo/. The reason why 
the apostle employs this word seems plainly to be, because he had 
just said τοῦ ἑνός, of which οἱ πολλοί is the direct antithesis, and as suck 
would designate all men in distinction from Adam. In regard to 
ἀπέθανον, 1 must refer the reader to what is said on ϑάνατος under 
verse 12. I would merely remark, that if ϑάνατος means, as I have 
there stated it to mean, evil of any hind in this world or in the next, 
then it is true that Adam did by his offence cause ϑάνατος to come 
on all without exception, inasmuch as all his race are born destitute 
of a disposition to holiness, and in such a state that their natural 
passions, whenever they come to act as moral agents, will lead them 
to sin. All too are the heirs of more or less suffering. It is true, 
then, that all suffer on Adam’s account; that all are brought under 


940 ROMANS Υ. 15. 


more or less of the sentence of death; in a word, that οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον; 
but still it need not be maintained because of this, that all, without 
any distinction and without any voluntary act of their own, are 
equally exposed to ϑάνατος in its fullest and highest and most awful 
sense. This I can no more regard as true, than that all men partake 
of the χάρισμα of Christ in its highest sense, without any act of their 
own, ¢. 6.. without repentance and faith. To say that οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον 
διὰ A Bd, is not to say that all have the sentence executed on them in 
its highest sense ( which is contradicted by fact); but it is to say, 
that in some respect or other, all are involved in it; that as to more 
or less of it, all are subjected to it; and that all are exposed to the 
whole of the evil which death includes, and this evil their own 
individual sin will consummate. In like manner, all receive some 
important benefits from Christ, even without any concurrence of their 
own; the most important favours moreover are proffered to every 
individual, but still these can be actually enjoyed only through 
penitence and faith. 

In a word, it appears to be one design of the apostle to say, that 
all the human race, without exception, are involved, by the offence 
of Adam, in more or less of evil, ὁ, ¢., in ϑάνατος of some kind or other 
and as the antithetic τύπος of this, to affirm that all, without excep- 
tion, partake of blessings which Christ has procured. Here is an 
essential point of the τύπος. As to the detail; it certainly is not 
necessary to suppose, that those who never had any knowledge or 
duty, and never arrived at a state in which they were capable of 
moral agency; in a word, that infants and idiots—are liable to the 
same ϑάνατος in all respects, as those who have σολλὰ παραπτώματα 
(ver. 16) of their own to answer for. It is enough for the apostle’s 
purpose, that all, even without any act or concurrence of their own, 
do in some degree partake both of the evil and the good, while the 
good ἐσπερίσσευσε; at the same time, all by their own acts may either 
bring on themselves ϑάνατος in its ultimate and highest sense on the 
one hand, or by penitence and faith they may obtain ζωή in its 
highest sense on the other. 

Πολλῷ μᾶλλον, much more; in sense just what the old logicians 
call an a fortiori in argument.—'H χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἡ δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι, 
the grace of God and the gift which is by grace, some regard as ἃ 
Hendiadys, and that the meaning is the gracious gift of God, viz., 
that gift which the gospel proffers, or those blessings which Christ 
has procured. But viewing the design of the writer as I do, I pre- 


ROMANS V. 15. 241 


fer a different interpretation, and construe each clause separately. 
Χάξις τοῦ Θεοῦ should, in this way of interpretation, be regarded as 
designating the favours which God bestows on all men without dis- 
tinction for Christ’s sake, and without any act on their part which 
is the condition of their being bestowed. See the same distinction 
made by the phraseology of ver. 17---- τὴν περισσείαν τῆς χάριτος, καὶ τῆς . 
δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης. But the more usual way of interpreting these 
expressions by the strenuousadvocates of imputation, gives no special 
significancy to this double enunciation. The repetition of this du- 
plication in ver. 17, however,seems to import that there is some 
speciality of design in it. Ifso, what is it, except it be that which 
has been suggested ? 

Ἢ δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι, if am right in the suggestion above, must mean 
the special blessings which are actually bestowed on some, through 
Christ, or on account of what he has done and suffered, and which 
are proffered to all. While all without distinction participate in 
some of the blessings which Christ has procured, and further bless- 
ings are in their full extent freely proffered to all, yet those who 
believe and actually receive pardon, do in this way become de facto 
participators of these further blessings in their highest sense. Ifany 
one should incline to interpret χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ and ἡ δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι 
% τ. δ. as a repetition of the idea for the sake of intensity, he should 
even in this case, refer χάρις Θεοῦ to the gracious or benevolent feeling 
or intention of the divine mind, and ἡ δωρεὼ x. τ. A. to this design as 
developed in the actual execution of such intention. 

Τῇ τὸῦ ἑνὸς . . .. Χριστοῦ, which is of one man Jesus Christ. TH 
has χάριτι for its antecedent. The Genitive τοῦ ἑνὸς x. τ. A. may be 
construed in different ways. Ifit be taken as Gen. odjecti, then it 
will mark the favour bestowed on Christ, ὁ, 6.9 of which he was the 
recipient ; which does not seem here to be the object of assertion. 
If it be construed as Gen. auctoris, then it will designate the grace 
of which Christ is the cause or author. Paul has just said χάρις 
Θεοῦ, where Θεοῦ plainly denotes the author; here therefore it is 
more probable, that τοῦ ἑνὸς x. +. A. Is Gen. auctoris, 1. 6.7 it signifies 
here, that the blessings bestowed upon men come by or through 
Christ, as their in.mediate cause or author. Such is the economy 
of the gospel, that we may ascribe all its blessings to God, and call 
them χάρις Θεοῦ ; we may also, with equal correctness, say, that Christ 
is the author or bestower of all the peculiar blessings of gospel grace. 


Q 


249 ROMANS Y. 15. 


“ Of his fulness have we all received, even grace for grace,” John 
a8: 

Εἰς σοὺς πολλοὺς ἐπερίσσευσε, hath abounded toward the many. Todg 
πολλοὺς With the article, has a different meaning from πολλοὺς without 
it; just as οἱ πολλοί, in the preceding clause, differs from πολλο, The 
latter would signify many in distinction from a few ; but οἱ πολλοί 
signifies the many, i. e., the mass of men, as we say in English; or 
in German, die Gesammiheit der Menschen; in Hebrew, ἘΝ ΟΞ, 
Rightly has Augustine said (on ver. 19) : ᾿Αμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ 
πολλοί, multi constituti sunt peccatores, ὃ. ¢., omnes, quirevera sunt 
multi, So in ver. 18, the synonyme is πάντας ἀνθρώπους. Indeed the 
laws of language here seem to place the meaning as thus given beyond 
the reach of fair controversy. When the apostle wished, as he did 
here (certainly in the first clause of ver. 15), to divide all men into 
two classes, if the ὁ <i; be put in the one, then οἱ πολλοί must designate 
the other. Πάντες would not here answer his purpose, for this would 
make but one class, which would of course include the ὁ εἷς ; for the 
opposition of πάντες is οὐδείς, no one, none. Moreover zordc/ (without 
the article) would not answer his purpose; for this is in opposition 
to some, not to one. Justso in the second member of ver. 15, where 
Christ (te one) is put in opposition to, or in distinction from, οἱ 
πολλοί, ἃ, € all others besides himself. If it be asked, How then 
could the apostle employ πάντας ἀνθρώπους in ver. 18? The answer is 
easy. In ver. 18 there is no antithesis of ὁ εἷς, one person, but only 
of ἕν σαράπτωμα ; which of course leaves the apostle at liberty to ex- 
change of πολλοί for πάντες. 

‘Lhe reader will observe, that the statement made in this verse is 
eimple declaration; a declaration, however, in which the appeal is 
tacitly made to that sense of the divine goodness, which the apostle 
seems to have taken for granted, dwelt in the breast of all his 
readers. ‘If it be true,’ says he, ‘that the sin of Adam occasioned 
ΕΟ much evil; then surely we may regard it as true, that the good- 
ness of God has abounded so as to counterbalance it” He needed 
no argument to make his readers inclined to receive this. 

As to any further question, how much ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ and ἡ δωρεὰ 
ἐν χάριτι here mean, and how these are bestowed on all men, I must 
refer the reader to the remarks made in Excursus TV. Let us count 
in what manner we please, if we make a right estimate, the blessings 
of the gospel will be found to be more than sufficient to counterbal- 


ROMANS Y. 16, 243 


ance the mischiefs of the fall; and this must be true, even when we 
take into view the full extent of those mischiefs. 

(16) Kas, imo, immo, yea; or it may well be rendered moreover, 
or again. The preceding verse exhibits the diverse nature or kind 
of influence upon men, through Adam and Christ respectively. The 
one condemns or destroys; the other forgives and saves. ‘The pre- 
sent verse exhibits a diversity of influence in another respect, viz., as 
to the degree in which it exists or is exercised. On the one side is 
the mischievous influence of one offence only; on the other is forgive- 
~ ness extended to many offences. The comparison begins with the 
general assertion of dissimilarity (οὐχ, ὡς) asin verse 15, and then 
continues with a γάρ causal as before. After οὐχ, ὡς, we should men- 
tally insert κατάχριμα in order to fill out the ellipsis; as is clear from 
the next clause, viz., τὸ μὲν γάρ nejun εἰς κατάκριμα. Comp. οὐχ, ws, 
τὸ παράπτωμα, ἴῃ verse 15.. 

᾿Αμαρτήσαντος. Several important Codices read ἁμαρτήματος, V1Z.5 
D., E., F., G., Cant., Germ., Beern., Harl.; also the Syriac, Vul- 
gate, and old Latin versions, with Theodoret (not uniformly), Aug., 
Rufin. Pelag., Ambrosiast., Sedul., which Griesbach has received 
into the text. But the present reading has, on the whole, a decided 
weight of evidence in its favour; and it is attended with no serious 
difficulty. One need only insert κατάκριμα after ὡς, and the compa- 
rison is obvious; and that this should be done is plain, as has already 
been hinted, from the clause immediately following, viz., +) μὲν γὰρ 
χρῆμα xz. τι % The whole would then read thus, ‘ Moreover [the con- 
demnation] on account of one who sinned, is not like the free gift; 
for the sentence by reason of one [offence] was unto condemnation 
[was a condemning sentence]; but the free gift [pardon] is of many 
offences unto justification, 7. ¢., is a sentence of acquittal from con- 
demnation for many offences.’ 

After δώρημα we must supply ἐγένετο or ἐξῆλθε.---- Τὸ μὲν γὰρ κρῆνα ἐξ 
ἑνός, 1. 6.) ἐξ ἑνὸς [παραπτώματος] ; for the antithesis, χάρισμα ἐκ πολλῶν 
παραπτωμάτων, shows very clearly that σαραπτώματος is to be supplied 
after ἑνός. Flatt observes that the mention of one offence, viz., the 
first one of Adam, does not exclude the idea that his other and sub- 
sequent offences might have contributed to the evils of his posterity, © 
as well as this; “much less,” he adds, “can we conclude that this 
one sin was the only cause of corruption.” But I cannot accede to 
this sentiment in the shape in which it is here presented. It is clear 
throughout this passage (verses 12—19), that ro σαραπτωμα, ἡ παρά- 


244 ROMANS V. 16. 


Basis, ἡ παρακοή, all have a specific relation to Adam’s first sin. 
Equally clear is it, that 1 Tim. ii. 14. 2 Cor. xi. 3. 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22, 
favour this opinion. And in the verse before us, ἐξ ἑνός [παραπτώ- 
ματος] is plainly and directly opposed to πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων, 
But how could this be, unless Paul considered the jirst offence of 
Adam, and (I may say) this only, as having occasioned the evils 
which he here contrasts with the blessings bestowed by Christ? It 
must be granted, indeed, that this was a peculiar dispensation of the 
Most High, one which displayed his sovereignty in a special manner. 
But so was the dispensation of grace. It was the one act of obedience 
unto death, by which Christ procured justification (δικαίωμα) for us. 
All the obedience of his life did, no doubt, contribute to the perfec- 
tion of his character, and thus fitted him to become an acceptable 
propitiatory sacrifice; but his obedience unto the death of the cross, 
was the grand act by which our salvation was ensured ; comp. Phil. 
ii. 8. Matt. xxvi. 39, 42. John x. 18. Heb. x. 7—10. In this re- 
spect, therefore, the obedience of the second Adam may be compared 
with the disobedience of the first; and so, indeed, does the apostle 
make the comparison in verse 19. . 

Τὸ μὲν γὰρ κρῆμα x. τ. A. The word xgjua, as here employed, pro- 
bably has reference to the formal threatening recorded in Gen. ii. 17, 
in accordance with which sentence was passed upon Adam. ‘This 
sentence was [ἐγένετο] s/s κατάκριμα of his posterity, all of whom were 
subjected to evil, ὦ. 6.) to death, on his account. Kejwa then has refer- 
ence to him, and κατάχριμα to his posterity, as they are here employed. 
The words are often synonymous; and are substantially so here; but 
the two forms are used for the sake of variety and making distinction. 

Χάρισμα is here the opposite of κρῖμα or κατάκριμα, 1. 6.5 forgiveness 
or the bestowment of favours on the one side, and condemnation or 
infliction of evil on the other. ‘The preposition ἐχ is not strictly ac- 
commodated to the connection with χάρισμα, for the simple Genitive 
would be more exact, according to the usual mode of expression. Its 
use here seems to have been occasioned by its use in the preceding 
clause, viz., in ἐξ ἑνός, where it is employed in the sense of propter, 
because of, on account of, as in Johniy. 6. Acts xxviii. 3. Rey. 
viii. 13. xvi. 10,11. Sept. Gen. xvi. 5. al.; see Bretsch. Lex. ἐλ, 
2.d. But there ἐκ seems to denote the occasional cause, ἢ, 6.7 forgive- 
ness could not be exercised unless there existed offence or sin. In 
this sense χάρισμα proceeds from offences. The πολλῶν is introduced 
to qualify σαραπτωμάτων, but does not alter the nature of the construc- 


ROMANS V. 16. 245 


tien. ‘The use of ἐκ in these two different relations and shades of 
sense, is here a kind of paronomasiac employment of it. 

Πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων cannot be rendered (as Siiskind and Flatt 
translate it), sins of many. This must have been expressed here, as 
it is in all the cases where σολλῶν is applied to designate the mass of 
men in this passage, by the use of the article, viz., + ὥ ν πολλῶν raga. 
πτωμάτων.---- Δικαίωμα differs from χάρισμα, only as the act differs from 
the intention. Χάρισμα is favour as exhibited in the gracious inten- 
tion of him who forgives. δικαίωμα is actual pardon or gratuitous 
justification. For δικαίωμα, Cod. D., Clar., Leth. have δικώμωμα ζωῆς, 
which is favoured by δικαίωσιν ζωῆς ἴῃ ver. 18, and seems to be by no 
means an improbable reading. 

The verse thus interpreted shows the ground of the περισσεία----ἶδι6 
abounding of the grace of the gospel—over the κατάχριμα occasioned 
by the sin of Adam. This abounding was generically asserted, or 
rather implied, in ver. 15, but not particularly explained. Here it 
is particularized. Whatever were the evils brought upon the pos- 
terity of Adam by his fall, they were only such as one offence occa- 
sioned. But, on the other hand, the blessings procured by Christ 
are not merely commensurate with these evils, they extend not only 
to counterbalancing the consequences of the fall, but also to the re- 
moving of the consequences of the σολλὰ παρωπτώματα of men. 

As to the sentiment of this verse, it is quite evident, that whether 
the κατάκριμα in question be considered as the loss of the righteous- 
ness of man’s original state, and the being born in a condition in 
which it is certain that our passions will get the better of our reason 
and bring us under condemnation; or whether it be considered as 
matter of fact, that the sin of Adam causes all men to be born witha 
disposition which is in itself positive sin, and thus necessarily brings 
us into condemnation: it is still true, in either case, that the evil 
inflicted or suffered is of such a nature as to lead to, or to prepare 
the way for κατάκριμα, condemnation, 1. e., Jévaros. 

But are all men without exception brought into κατάκριμα ἢ In 
the like sense, I reply, as they are all made the partakers of the 
χάρισμα. Many blessings are bestowed, for Christ’s sake, on all men 
without exception, whether with or without their voluntary concur- 
rence. Forbearance to punish, temporal blessings, probationary 
opportunities to secure eternal happiness, &c., come to all. So tem- 
poral evils, trials, suffering, loss of the original state of righteousness, 
peculiar exposure to temptations, predominating sensual appetites, 


240 ROMANS V. 17. 


&c., come upon all, even without their concurrence. Beyond these, 
we may say that some voluntary act on the part of each individual 
(as has once and again been stated), is essential to final death or life ; 
certainly it is essential in order to receive the δικαίωμα in its full 
sense, for without repentance and faith it is impossible that actual 
and tltimate forgiveness should be in fact bestowed. If now. the 

. comparison of the apostle will fully hold here, (and who will deny 
that he means to make the impression that it will?) how can it any 
more be shown, that the one sinner has directly and absolutely and 
unconditionally brought χατάκριμα in its highest sense on all men 
without any act of their own, than it can be shown that δικαίωμα in 
its full sense is actually conferred by the one righteous on all with- 
out any act of their own? ‘The latter certainly is not true; and if 
so, how then can the former be made out; or, at least, how can it 
be made out from analogy? ‘That the fall of Adam has had an in- 
Jluence on the guilt and condemnation of all who perish, in some way 
or other; that it is one of the causes of these, in the sense of being 
the special occasion of, or of being peculiarly accessory to, a state or 
condition preparatory to the guilt that brings on κατάκριμα in its 
highest sense, I do most fully believe and freely admit. I see no 
good ground to deny that the apostle had so much in view. More 
than this, however, the language which he employs does not oblige 
us to admit, nor (so far as I can see) the usual laws of interpretation 
permit us to admit, in case we hold ourselves bound to construe his 
various assertions so as to make them accord with each other, and 
with the first principles of moral consciousness. More than this, 
the nature of his comparisons does not seem to allow. The analogy, 
moreover, of other parts of Scripture seems to speak for such an 
interpretation; as we shall see in thesequel. See Excursus on this 
verse. 

(17) Re-examination of this verse has led me to views of its con- 
struction and immediate object in the apostle’s discourse, somewhat 
different from those stated in the first edition of this work. The γάρ 
at the commencement of it makes some difficulty, at first view : for 
verse 17 does not seem to be designed as a confirmation of the lead- 
ing idea in verse 16, which is, the contrast between the evils occa- 
sioned by one sin, and the good bestowed by the forgiveness of many 
sins. But in verse 17 the reigning idea is, that if God inflicted so 
much evil as the consequence of the one sin of one man, a fortiori he 
will secure the greater good where his grace abounds through one, 


ROMANS V. 17. 247 


Now this same idea, for substance, is conveyed by verse 15; where, 
indeed, the very same hypothetical form of assertion (εἰ γάρ x. r. 2.) 
is used, and the same nouns (χάρις and δωρεά) areemployed. There 
we have χάρις καὶ δωρεὰ. . . . ἐπερίσσευσε, and here we have τὴν περισ- 
σείαν τῆς χάριτος καὶ δωρεᾶς .. .. λαμβάνοντες, which is altogether equi- 
valent. All the difference that I'can perceive between the two 
verses is, that the expressions in verse 17 are more intense: 6. g. 
verse 15 οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον, but in verse 17 ὁ ϑάνατος ἐβασίλευσε ; IN Verse 
15 χάρις καὶ δωρεὰ ..ν 8/5 TOUS πολλοὺς ἐπερίσσευσε, in verse 17 οἱ λαμβά- 
VOVTES περισσείαν... . ἐν ζωῇ βασιλεύσουσι. Verse17 then, may be regarded 
as being more intense and specific in its form of expression; ‘bat it 
does not seem to enlarge the actual circle of the ideas. I must 
therefore regard it in the licht of repetition, for the sake of intensity 
or emphasis, of the reigning idea of the whole passage, viz., the 
abounding of grace over sin. In this view the reader may connect 
it with the οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα οὕτως τὸ χάρισμα of verse 15, or with 
the equivalent expression at the commencement of verse 16. The 
latter is preferable for its facility. ‘The general idea that runs 
through the three verses is, the abounding of grace over sin. Verse 
15 declares that we may naturally expect this, viz., from the well- 
known character of God (for such seems to be the writer’s view) ; 
verse 16 shows that it must be so, because many sins are forgiven 
by grace, while one sin comes into the account as the cause of the 
evils in question. Verse 17 then repeats the main idea in language 
more strong and specific than had before been used. The γάρ seems 
therefore to be referrible to an οὕτως ἐστί, or something of the like 
nature here in the apostle’s mind, in reference to the greatness and 
the certainty of the salvation bestowed through Christ, which he has 
so strongly insisted on in verses 1—11 of the present chapter. As 
if he would say, ‘ Salvation is sure and certain; our hope will not 
make us ashamed or disappoint us (verse 5); we may rejoice confi- 
dently in God as our coyenant God (verse 11); for, because, (ye), 
it is certain that if sin has done great mischief in bringing all into a 
state of condemnation, grace will do much more good as ‘dispense! 
through Jesus Christ.’ Or if the reader is not satisfied with the 
causal relation as thus indicated, because he may deem it too remote, 
we may state it thus; ‘The dissimilarities between the nature and 
operations of the sin of Adam and the beneficence of Christ, are not 
only great in some important respects, but they are such as lead us 


248 ROMANS V. 17. 


to believe with the greater certainty that salvation is secure. This 
is so; FOR if by the ‘offense of one, &e. 

The attentive reader will not fail to observe, that the contig 
drawn in this verse (for such it is when considered in a logical point 
of view), is apparently drawn in part from premises indirectly as- 
serted or implied, and in part from the nature of the case, which the 
writer might presume would be understood and assented to by all 
his readers. What is indirectly asserted, is, that there is σερισσεία 
τῆς χάριτος καὶ τῇ δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης. The consequence of this is, 
the bestowment of life in Christ. Then, moreover, the idea that is 
brought to view in verse 15, viz., that we may well expectfrom the 
nature of the case and the enaracter of God, that the effects of the 
beneficence of Christ will predominate over the effects of Adam’s 
sin, seems to be here conjoined with the sentiment assumed respect- 
ing the abundance of grace. The 17th verse, then, is properly an 
enthymeme, t. e., a syllogism whose form is not fully made out. 

Διὰ τοῦ ἑνός may be regarded as emphatic. The apostle had already 
said, τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι ; and when he says again, ἐβασίλευσε διὸ; 
τοῦ ἑνός, he renders emphatic two things, viz., the predominance of 
death, and the fact that this predominance was occasioned by one 
individual, viz., Adam. 

Πολλῷ, . . . Χριστοῦ. - It seems evident to me that σολλῷ μᾶλλον 
here should be referred to the greater credibility that the happiness 
of the pardoned will be secure, and not that it should be taken (as 
Siiskind, Flatt, and Tholuck maintain) as qualifying βασιλεύσουσι. 
Tn ver. 15, the same words may qualify ἐπερίσσευσε, and so they are 
construed by some; and here they may be construed with βασιλεύ- 
cover; but in both cases the most simple and obvious method is to 
construe them as referring to the greater credibility of super-abound- 
ing grace. They stand too far from the respective verbs, to be 
“naturally joined with them. 

In respect to the phrases τὴν περισσείαν «ἧς χάριτος und τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς 
δικαιοσύνης, see remarks on yer. 15. I would merely add here, that 
if we construe the first as pertaining to those blessings of the gospel 
which are bestowed on all men without exception and without dis- 
tinction, and thesecond as designating the peculiar blessings bestowed 
on the penitent and believing, then both conjoined would here indi- 
cate, that they who reign in life must be partakers of both; in which 
case their salvation must be altogether certain. Of those who think 


ROMANS V. 17. 249 


that there is no ground for any distinction of meaning between the 
two phrases, some adopt the exegesis here which represents Christ as 
the author of blessings only to the elect, and some that which makes 
actual redemption co-extensive with the human race. But how can 
the first method of exegesis be correct, when the laws of philology 
and interpretation here will not warrant: it, and when indeed the 
fact itself contradicts it? And how can the second be true, which 
contradicts the context and innumerable declarations in various parts 
of the Scriptures? Yet, on another ground, viz., that a simple and 
“essential principle merely of the gospel dispensation is here stated, 
both of the expressions here employed may be regarded as equiva- 
lent, without any serious difficulty ; for then the declaration is, that 
“the gospel, taken as a system of grace in opposition to the evils of 
sin, PROFFERS blessings far more abundant than the evils which the 
sin of Adam has introduced. Jt proffers abundant pardon and eter- 
nal glory. And in this case, the reigning in life would seem to in- 
dicate a higher measure of happiness than men would have attained, 
had they continued obedient under a system of mere law. Respect- 
ing this we can only say: ‘O the depth of the riches of gospel- 
grace. With men this may be unexpected and even improbable ; 
but—‘ God will be greatly glorified in his Son.’ 

While I am fully persuaded, however, that the principal design of 
the apostle in the whole passage, is to state the nature and tendencies 
of the two different dispensations under Adam and Christ, yet. this 
Jast method of interpreting his language does not oblige us to main 
tain, that the two expressions above quoted, and employed in vers. 
15,17, were designed to be mere parallelisms or synonymes. Still 
I would concede, that we may regard them so, and construe them 
in accordance with such a view, without doing any violence to the 
laws of interpretation. 

Tholuck refers δικαιοσύνη here to internal sanctification, or to the 
life of God in the soul of man, 2. e., subjective holiness. But it seems 
to me quite clear, that δικαιοσύνη conveys the same meaning here as 
δικαιωθέντες in vers. 1, 9. Certainly this makes the antithesis to the 
state of condemnation, designated by ὁ ϑάνατος ἐβασίλευσε in the pre- 
ceding clause. 

As to βασιλεύσουσι ἐν ζωῇ, it is well known that ζωή is the common 
word to indicate happiness, and therefore it needs not to be here 
proved. That to reign means to be exalted to an elevated and glori- 
ous condition, the reader may sce by comparing Rev. ii. 26, 27. iil, 


250 ROMANS VY. 18. 


21. Matt. xix. 28. Luke xxii. 30. 1 Cor. vi. 2. 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12. 
Rey. xx. 4. Dan. vii. 22. Ps. xlix. 14. Ex. xix. 6, comp. 1 Pet. ii. 9. 


CHAP. V. 18, 19. 


We have already seen, that ver, 12 contains a protasis without a corresponding apodosis, We 
have also seen, that ὅς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος (ver. 14) may be regarded as comprising in the 
way of hint, but not formally, a kind of apodosis. No sooner was τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος uttered by 
the apostle, than his mind was turned to the comparison thus proposed to the mind by the use 
of these words, and he proceeds to guard his readers against misconstruing τύπος, by carrying 
too far the resemblance which it indicates. Accordingly he does this, as we have seen, in verses 
15—17, which exhibits the epanorthosis (ἐπανόρθωσις) in question; for so grammarians call that 
form of speech which is designed to guard against mistakes. This being completed, he now 
proceeds fully to exhibit his apodosis or main conclusion, in verses 18,19. But the reader should 
not consider these verses as a simple resumption of the subject as left unfinished in verse 12; 
for it is evident that the manner of expression in them is built upon what is said or declared in 
the intermediate verses. This will be made evident in the explanation of the phraseology. 


(18) "Aga οὖν. . .. κατάκριμα, wherefore, as by the offence of one 
{sentence came] upon all men unto condemnation. "Aga and ἄρα οὖν 
are commonly illative, according to New Testament usage; 6. 0.» 
Matt. vii. 20. Gal. iv. 31. Rom. vii. 3, 25. viii. 12. ix. 16, 18. xiv. 
12, 19, et alibi. Nor does this make any serious difficulty here. 
The apostle had already averred, that Adam was τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος. 
He had already shown, that the mischiefs resulting to our race from 
the fall of Adam, were more than repaired by the grace of Christ. 
"Ago. οὖν, then, would by no means be inapposite. It is as much as 
to say: ‘ Matters being as I have already declared, it follows or 
results from them, that the comparison begun in verse 12 will hold, 
viz., that as all have been introduced to sin and death by Adam, so 
righteousness and life are provided for all by Christ.’ While ἄρα 
οὖν may be admitted then (as Tholuck urges), to be dlative, this does 
not hinder these words from standing at the head of a sentence which 
is in substance a resumption of what had been said in verse 12, 
although the form of it is illative in respect to what had been said 
in the intermediate verses. 

That 6/ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος means by the offence of one [man], has 
been strenuously argued by some, from the antithesis δὲ ἑνὸς δικαιώμα. 


τ“ ΊΎε. 


ROMANS V. 18. 25} 


rcs; which naturally (as they aver) cannot mean any thing but the 
righteousness of one (not one righteousness). This seems, at first 
view, to be conclusive ; yet the idiom of the whole passage makes 
strongly against it. When Paul wishes to make such a distinction, 
he says τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι, using the Dative of πυράπτωμα and 
the Genitive of εἧς with the article τοῦ before it; see verse 15, and 
the same again in verse 17. In verse 16, where he employs ἑνός 
without the article, he uses a participle (ἁμαρτήσαντος) with it, in 
order to prevent mistake ; while in the antithetic part, he employs 
ἀνθρώπου (verse 15), and I. Χριστοῦ (verse 17), so as effectually to guard 
against any misconception of his meaning by the general reader. 
But in verse 18 neither of these methods of designation is employed. 
I see not, therefore, how we can well avoid the conclusion, that δι 
ἑνὸς παραπτώματος means by one offence ; and so, that δ ἑνὸς dinasiuaros 
must mean by one righteousness. If the latter expression appears 
somewhat unusual or strange, the reader should call to mind, that 
Paul’s frequent antithesis occasions, in not a few instances, unusual 
expressions to be employed, which carry out a kind of paronomasia 
aud render the diction on the whole the more striking. All difficulty 
about δικαίωμα here however, is removed by verse 19, where ὑπακοή 
is employed in its stead. Boththe δικαίωμα and the ὑπακοή refer, no 
doubt, more specifically to his great act of “ obedience unto death,” 
on account of which God highly exalted the Saviour and gave him 
the fruits of his obedience, viz., sinners justified and accepted. 
Δικαίωμα, here taken as the antithesis of ragérraua, must mean the 
obedient fulfilling of what was required of Christ as our substitute. 

That κρῆνα is implied after σαραπτώματος, is suggested by Calvin, 


_ and is clear from the manifestly elliptical condition of the sentence 


as it now stands, as well as from a comparison of it with the middle 
clause in verse 16. 

Eis πάντας ἀνθρώπους is twice employed in this verse, instead of the 
οἱ πολλοί used in the preceding verse and in verse 19. The reason 
of this seems to be, that the ἑνός here employed does not designate 
one man, but one offence, one righteousness or act of obedience. If 
ἑνός here meant one man, then οἱ πολλοί must have been employed as 
the natural antithesis of it; for πάντας would include that one, and 
πολλοί would not. It should be noted also, that if the apostle had 
designed here to designate only the elect by πάντας ἀνθρώπους in the 
second case, he could hardly have avoided subjoining to πάντας some 
other word than ἀνθρώπους, which is the very word he had already 


252 ROMANS Iv. 18. 


employed in the antithetic member of the sentence, and which the 
reader would naturally and indeed spontaneously understand in the 
same way in both cases. Where else in all the Bible is πάντες 
ἄν ϑρωσοι employed as the designation of the elect only? How can we 
feel ourselves at liberty here, then, to construe it in a manner con- 
trary to the plain and obvious sense of the words as usually em- 
ployed, and contrary to the very nature and object of the antithesis 
in this case? So Calvin, strenuous as he was in his views respecting 
original sin, did not construe this passage. Let us hear him: 
“ Communem omnium gratiam facit, guia omnibus exposita est, non 
quod ad omnes extendatur re ipsé; nam etsi passus est Christus 
PRO PECCATIS TOTIUS MUNDI, atgueé OMNIBUS 1INDIFFERENTER 
Dei benignitate offeratur ; non tamen omnes apprehendunt.” — So do 
such men speak, when they look away from system and have 
thoroughly studied the scriptures, as Calvin had done when he 
wrote this. In his early work entitled Jnstitutiones, he has some- 
times exhibited sentiments which appear to differ from these. I only 
add, that no words can more exactly express what I suppose the 
apostle to mean, than those of Calvin; for it is manifest, that he here 
considers the object of Paul to be a statement of what the gospel-plan 
of salvation is, considered as it is in its own proper nature, and not 
as giving the simple history of what has actually taken place in all 
respects. On the one hand is a state of imminent exposure to ever- 
lasting death, together with many other actual evils; on the other 
hand is free access for all to everlasting life, with the bestowment of 
many actual blessings. Could Calvin, if he were consistent with 
himself, view the subject in any other light than this? Does matter 
of fact justify us in extending it beyond this, if the parallel of the 
two cases is to be made out? 

Οὕτω xai.... ζωῆς, so [the free gift came] upon all men unto justi- 
fication of life. That χάρισμα is here to be supplied, is manifest from 
the nature of the case, from the elliptical state of the phrase, and 
from a comparison with the latter clause of verse 16. Οὕτω χα is 
the sign of the apodosis, which stands in antithesis both to verse 12, 
and to the first clause in the present verse, which is in substance a 
resumption or repetition of that verse. 

Δικαίωσιν ζωῆς, justification of life, means that justification which 
is connected with eternal life or happiness. So Calvin; and so the 
riature of the case requires. It is plain that δικαίωμα in verse 16, 
δικαιοσύνη in yerse 17, and δικαίωσις here, are all used substantially in 


ROMANS v. 10, 053 


the same sense; as indeed they all may be, consistently with the 
practice of the New Testament writers. These different words seem 
to be chosen by the writer, for the sake of avoiding uniformity of 
diction. On the other hand, the one δικαίωμα ascribed to Christ in 
the preceding phrase, must mean either his “ obedience unto death,” 
or his incarnation as preparatory and essential to this; comp. Heb. 
x. 5—10. 

(19) Most interpreters have considered this verse to be little, if 
any thing, more than a repetition of ver. 18. So Theophylact, 
~Ecumenius, Semler, and even Tholuck and Riickert, Rosenmiiller, 
in a manner characteristic of the superficial views which he frequently 
exhibits respecting the logical connection of discourse and the special 
structure of it, says: Hic eadem fere quanta vice [Paulus] dicit. 
Still, the γάρ at the beginning of the verse shows, that the writer 
meant to assign some reason or ground for what he had just asserted 
in the preceding verse, either in the way of explanation or confirma- 
tion. Verse 18 asserts fully, having both a protasis and an apodosis, 
what ver. 12 begins to assert but leaves unfinished, viz., that as by 
the offence of Adam all men were brought into a state of condemna- 
tion, so by the δικαίωμα of Christ all were brought into a state of 
justification. In ver. 18, then, the simple fact that men are brought 
into : uch a state is declared, but nothing is directly said in this verse 
which accounts or assigns a specific reason for such consequences. 

In ver. 19 therefore, the apostle adds the ground or reason why all 
men have come into a state of condemnation and of justification, viz., 
it is because they have become sinners through the disobedience of 
Adam on the one hand, and righteous through the obedience of Christ 
on the other; ὦ, ¢., the disobedience of Adam was a cause.or ground 
why all men became sinners and therefore came into a state of con- 
demnation, and the obedience of Christ is in like manner a cause or 
ground why all are come into a state of justification. It seems to 
have been generally overlooked here, that the course of thought in 
vers. 18, 19 is substantially the same as that in ver. 12, with the 
exception that what is there merely hinted, is here fully and expli- 
citly declared. There the sentiment is, that by the offence of one 
man sin entered the world and death followed, and followed so as to 
extend itself over all the human family, inasmuch as all became sin- 
ners, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον. ‘There too, as we have seen above, the καί 
οὕτως intimates, that the entrance of sin and’death into the world 
“heing brought about by the offence of Adam, the spread also of these 


9254 ROMANS v. 19. 


was in some way connected with or occasioned by this offence. But 
in vers. 18, 19, these thoughts are fully and explicitly unfolded; for 
ver. 18 declares explicitly that condemnation and justification are 
connected with or occasioned by the offence of Adam and the right- 
eousness of Christ, and ver. 19 shows that the ground or reason of 
this is, that on the one hand men are made sinners by the disobedi- 
ence of Adam, and on the other are made righteous through the 
obedience of Christ. ‘The second part or apodosis in each of these 
verses is merely tmplied in ver. 12, and not at all expressed; but 
ἁμαρτωλοὶ xareorddnoay οἱ πολλοί of ver. 19, is evidently intended by the 
apostle to correspond with the ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον in ver. 12. What 
is added in ver. 19, to the former statement is, that ‘ by the disobedi- 
ence of one man, the many became sinners;’ a thing not explicitly 
declared but merely hinted in the καὶ οὕτως of ver. 12. ) 

It is allowed by nearly all commentators, that vers. 18, 19 resume 
and complete the statement begun at verse 12. If then, as seems to 
be quite clear, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ σάντες ἥμαρτον in ver. 12 and ἁμαρτωλοὶ xurcord- 
Snouy of πολλυί in ver. 19 correspond, it is plain that in the latter case 
actual sinners are denoted as well as actual sin in the former case. 
The fact, that Adam’s sin was a cause or ground of men’s becoming 
sinners in reality (not putatively so), and that Christ’s obedience was 
a ground of men’s becoming righteous, 7. e., of their being justified 
in reality (not merely in a putative or fictitious manner), constitutes 
the substance of the declaration in ver. 19; and all this is a fuller 


and more explicit declaration of the sentiment implied in verse 12, 


while at the same time it stands related to verse 18 as assigning a 
ground or reason of the condemnation and justification there asserted. 

That σαρακοή here is the same as παράβασις in verse 14, and as 
παράπτωμα in verses 15, 17, 18, needs hardly to be mentioned. In 
none of these cases is reference made to other offences of Adam 
besides the first, but specifically to the first and to that only. See 
on verse 16 above. In other words; it isnot the ragaxo4 of Adam’s 
whole life to which the apostle here refers, but only to the first act 
of his disobedience. 

Every thing peculiar in this verse depends, as will readily be seen, 
on ἁμαρτωλοί, δίκαιοι, and καθίστημι. In what sense then does scriptural 
usage entitle us to take the first of these words? Jn all other places 
except this, I cannot hesitate for a moment to say, it is taken as 
designating a sinner in heart and life, or (in other words) an actual 
sinner. The very form and limitations of the verb ἁμαρτάνω, which 


_— 


ROMANS v. 19. 255 


has only an active voice, confirm this idea. If ἁμαρτωλός is ever em- 
ployed in order to designate those who are guilty, in the sense of 
being obnoxious to punishment; like the word gztlty itself, in such 
cases, it implies at the same time moral turpitude and ill desert as 
the ground of this obnoxiousness. To designate one who has merely 
the susceptibility of receiving impressions that will lead him to sin 
(Adam had this before his fall); or one who has (as we say) merely 
an original disposition to sin, ὁ. 6.7 such a disposition as is native and 
not superinduced; or one who is beset. with temptations to sin, and 
is in great danger from them; todesignate one who is simply exposed 
to evil, or is merely unhappy or wretched ; the word ἁμαρτωλός is 
never used in the Scriptures, unless it be so employed here. The 
proofs of this lie open to every one, in any good Concordance: and 
indeed the nature of the case is sufficient to satisfy most persons. 
Why then should we introduce a new sense of the word here? In 
- ver. 12, when the apostle had said, that ‘by one man sin entered the 
world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, he meant 
by these last words (as we have seen above), that his readers should 
understand him to hint, that the passing of death upon all men had 
some connection with Adam’s offence. But still he subjoins im- 
mediately, as the specific and immediate reason or ground of this 
death, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον. Why not recognize the same connection 
and the same sentiment here? Adam’s sin was a cause or ground 
why all men are constituted sinners; yet Adam’s sin is not affirmed 

to be their sin; they are not said to be ἐν αὐτῷ ἁμαρτωλοῖ, nor τῇ 
| ἁμαρτίᾳ αὑτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοί, NOY yet τῷ χατακρίματι αὐτοῦ καταδεδικασμένοι 5 
but they are ἁμαρτωλοί in, by, and for themselves. A ground or 
cause of this, was Adam’s offence. Such is the relation of all men 
to him, and such the relation between parents and children, and such 
the laws of our propagated nature, that evils are entailed on all the 
posterity of Adam by his disobedience and fall. But natural evil, 
and disadvantage, and degeneracy of nature is one thing, and sin, is 
another. A man’s sin is and must be his own act, either internal or 
external, or both ; and for men to be ἁμαρτωλοί, they must be actively 
and voluntarily so. Another man’s sin can no more be mine, than 
his soul can be mine; no more than his consciousness, will, affections, 
or disposition, can be mine. To impute them to me, then, must be 
to impute to me what in fact does not belong to me, what never did, 
and what never can. The candid advocates of imputation in its 
highest sense, coneede this. But how much progress do we make in 


556 Σν ROMANS Vv. 19. 


the knowledge of things, and in the explanation of important prin- 
ciples in theology, when we affirm that God counts that as existing 
which does not in reality exist, and which is in itself an impossi- 
bility ? 

To avoid the difficulty of such imputation (which indeed such men 
as Calvin, and Edwards, and Stapfer pointedly rejected) some, 6. 4.» 
Edwards and others, have assumed an absolute unity or oneness of 
Adam and all his posterity. But this method of explanation is 
fraught with difficulties both physiological and moral. Τ is physio- 
logically untrue. A separate consciousness, will, affections, desires, 
&c., make separate beings; or else there is but one being material 
or immaterial,in the universe. Consciousness contradicts this theory. 
Individual accountability renders it incredible. If Adam and his 
posterity are indeed all one, then all their sins are just as much his, 
as his is theirs; and his penitence is as much theirs, as his offences. 
Or is it true, that God, a being of boundless benevolence and love of 
holiness, has made such a world that nothing but sin can be pro- 
pagated in it? 

The simple statement of fact seems to be, after all, that God has 
such an utter aversion to sin, that he has testified his displeasure by 
an appalling exhibition of the woful consequences to which it leads. 
Sin is a violation of the order and harmony of the universe, and con- 
sequently productive of evil, because it disturbs those laws and ten- 
dencies all of which are in themselves productive of good. The 
greatest mischief of all is, that sin, in this way, brings suffering and 
sorrow upon the innocent as well as the guilty. But in this very 
way, too, the odious and abominable nature of sin is most fully and 
completely exhibited. The earth cursed for man’s sake; the brute 
oreation subjected to innumerable evils on his account ; the posterity 
of Adam born heirs of suffering, and despoiled of the disposition to 
obedience which our primitive ancestors possessed; are all striking 
and melancholy evidences of the evil of sin. But for the evils to 
which Adam’s posterity are subjected and exposed, God has provided 
a remedy; or rather, he has prepared the way for redemption from 
them. ‘The two things, therefore, now go together, viz., the exhibi- 
tion of the dreadful effects of sin on the one hand, and of abounding 
mercy and benevolence on the other. ‘The constitution of the uni- 
verse, by which sin was made to appear so dreadful in its bitter fruits, 
is doubtless ordained to serve great and wise purposes, sooner or later, 
in the scheme of the divine moral government and discipline. Nor 


c 


ROMANS V. 19. Q57 


is the case of Adam’s sin the only one, and altogether singular in its 
kind. The same principle in the constitution of the world every 
where developes itself. Parents by their vices ruin their children ; 
wicked men corrupt their neighbourhood; bad rulers affect whole 
nations with evil, the innocent as well as the guilty. Nothing can 
be more unture, than that the mischiefs occasioned by sin light only 
upon the guilty. The horrible evil of sin is, that according to the 
constitution of the universe, it often involves the innocent as well 
as the guilty in its consequences. Nor could “the exceeding sin- 
fulness of sin” be fully displayed and held forth in its odious light 
to the abhorrence of all benevolent beings, unless such were the case. 
Still, after all is attributed to the first sin which belongs to it, it 
would be difficult to see how Adam’s first offence differed from other 
sins, as to the consequences which it superinduced, excepting that 
his condition and his relations to the whole human race differed 
greatly from those of any of his posterity. The consequences of his 
sin, therefore, were peculiar and awfully deleterious. 

It is then one thing to be made a sufferer on account of the sin of 
others, and another thing to be constituted a sinner by something that 


-he has done. So far as it respects the manner in which Adam’s sin 


has affected us, both of these consequences have flowed from it. This 
leads us to consider next the word, 
Κατεστάθησαν. The primary and literal sense of this word, as ac- 
tively used, seems to be to lay down, put down, deposit ; as its compo- 
sition (κατά and forqus) would plainly denote. In a secondary sense, 
the word means to establish, ordain, setile, introduce, arrange, deter- 
mine, decide or decree, constitute, to cause that any person or thing 
should be this or that, possess this or that quality, or fill this or that 
place or office, &c. Besides these active transitive senses, it has also 
neuter or intransitive meanings, 6. g., to subsist, to be extant, to be 
stable or established, to stand firm or unmoved. ‘This latter class of 
meanings would be quite inappropriate to the passage before us, and 
it is therefore plainly out of question. The form κατεστάθησαν is pas- 
sive Aor. 1; which tense is frequently employed, in many verbs, in 
the sense of the middle voice (see New Test. Gramm. § 61. 4). where 
there is no Aor. middle. But as here there is a middle Aor. 1, the 
sense of the verb must be regarded as being passive, and passive as 
to some of its transitive meanings; for it is only the Perf., Pluperf, 
Aor. 2 act., and Fut. 3 pass., that have a neuter or intransitive sense, 
excepting that the Pres., Imp., and Fut. middle may have either sense. 
R 


258 ROMANS VY. 19. 


We come then to the conclusion, that κατεστάθησαν must mean were 
constituted, were made to be, were caused to be; for standing in con- 
nection as it does with παρακοή AS designating a cause or means, it 
would hardly seem susceptible of any of the other transitive mean- 
ings which the verb καθίστημι has. Reiche has laboured, with much 
learning, to prove that xadiorqus may mean to show, exhibit, publicly 
demonstrate any thing to be this or that; and that the Pass. voice 
may of course mean to be shown, &c. He admits, however, that 
classic examples of this usage are not at hand, excepting αὔτιον καθι- 
στάνειν (to show cause) as employed by Lucian. But in Hellenistic 
Greek he thinks this to be more common; 6. g., 3 Mace. iil. 5, ἅπασιν 
ἀνθρώποις εὐδόκιμοι καθειστήκεισαν ; Where, however, the neuter sense (be- 
came permanently) is better than the one he proposes, and indeed the 
only one that can well be given to καθειστήκεισαν, because the tense 
is Pluperfect. So in Josephus, (Ant. VI. 5, 6,) τὸν Θεὸν αὐτοῖς εὐμενῆ 
καταστῆσαι may mean to render the Divinity propitious to them, not 
(as Reiche proposes) exhibit him as propitious. It does not seem 
clear, therefore, that we can regard χατεστάθησαν here as equivalent 
to ἐφανερώθησαν, and render it declarati sunt esse, with Koppe, C. Flatt, 
and Reiche. Nor can we, with Grotius, Limborch, Whitby, Storr, — 
Siiskind, Flatt, and others, render κατεστάθησαν merely by the phrase 
were treated as sinners; for the apostle has told us in verse 12 that 
death has passed upon all men ig’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον; and how, morer 
over, could a just and unerring God treat men as sinners unless they 
were so? Evil, 7. ¢., natural evil, he might indeed bring on the 
innocent, because of the sins of others; for nothing is farther from 
truth, than that sin and suffering in the present world are in all cases 
oo-extensive and correspondent. The horrible evil of sin is, that it 
affects the innocent as well as the guilty. But in the case before us 
the apostle means to say, not that men are treated as being what they 
are not; nor yet that the guilty involve the innocent in suffering; 
but that men through the σαραχοή of Adam, did become or were con- 
stituted actual sinners, and so came (as the preceding verse asserts) 
εἰς κατάκριμα, 

Διὰ ὑπακοῆς has doubtless the same meaning for substance here, 
which δύ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος has in verse 18. See the remarks under 
this verse, and also on verse 16; and compare attentively the pas- 
sages in Matt. xxvi. 39,42. John x. 18. Phil. ii. 8. Heb. x. 7—10. 
But although I can scarcely entertain a doubt that the obedience of 
Christ, in this connection of thought, means in particular his obe- 


ROMANS V. 19. 259 


dience in assuming our nature and his suffering an expiatory death 
in it, yet 1 would not exclude the idea that the active (as well as 
passive) obedience of his whole life did contribute, yea was necessary, 
to the perfection of his character‘as'‘a Mediator and a great High 
Priest who should make atonement for us. Without such an obe- 
dience, he would have needed an atonement for himself, instead of 
being able to make it for others. But-in respect to the specific alle- 
gation, that ‘ Christ’s obedience (ὑπακοή) is imputed to us;’ this Paul 
does not here nor elsewhere say, nor any other sacred writer. This 
~ is a phraseology superinduced ‘upon the Bible, many years since the 
Reformation, from human systems and methods of explanation ; and 
not one which is taken from the Scriptures and transferred into 
Symbols. Jn all the Bible there occurs NOT such a declaration, as 
that one man’s sin or righteousness is IMPUTED to another. The thing 
for substance aimed at, by many who employ such phraseology, is 
doubtless a doctrine of the Bible, viz., that the obedience of Christ, 
above all his obedience unto death, did contribute to constitute him 
an all-glorious and all-sufficient Mediator. As to the rest, that God 
FOR CHRIST’S SAKE forgives sinners, not imputing their trespasses 
to them, is the very sum and substance of what is appropriately 
called ,.THE GOSPEL, and all which can be exegetically made out 
from the simple interpretation of the Scriptures. For in what part 
of the Bible is it said that Christ obeyed for us? Or where, that 
his obedience is imputed tous? And yet, that on our account or in 
our behalf, he obeyed and suffered, I deem to be a great and funda- 
mental doctrine of the gospel. 

Δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται of πολλοί the many shall be made righteous. 
Several difficulties present themselves here. Is δίκαιος to be taken in 
an active or passive sense? ‘That is, does it mean one who is pious, 
fearing God and obeying his commands, justus, pius, probus ; or does 
it mean justificatus, a justified person, one forgiven or delivered from 
the curse of the law? In all cases excepting the present one and 6 
δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως, 1 think it must be conceded that δίκαιος is employed 
in the active sense; that is, it means either one who obeys the whole 
Jaw, i. ¢., it has a legal sense, or else it means one who obeys in such 
a manner as proves him to bea sanctified, holy, devout person, ὦ. 6.; 
it has an evangelical sense. As to the case of δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως, I do 
not see any good reason for departing from the common usus loguendi 
in respect to δίκαιος; for the declaration amounts simply to this, viz., 
that a man is pious, holy, of an obedient spirit, through faith, or in 


260 ROMANS VY. 19. Q 


the way of exercising faith in the Lord Jesus, and has thus been 
graciously sanctified, so that he now fears God and keeps his con- 
mandments in a Christian sense. As to the case before us, I doubt 
on several accounts, whether we can translate or explain δήκαιος by 
the word justijied ; for this would merely designate a passive sense, 
and be descriptive of what Christ has done for sinners, without ex- 
hibiting the active sense in which they are holy or obedient, δίκαιοι. 
No other certain or satisfactory example of such a usage can be 
shown, in respect to this word, so far as I have been able to discover. 
Δικαιωθείς, δικαιωθέντες 18 employed by Paul, when he wishes to desig- 
nate simply the passive idea; 6. g., Rom. v.1, al. A/xaso, moreover, 
must have an active sense here, in order to make out the antithesis 
to ἁμαρτωλοί, which clearly bears only an active sense, if the usus 
loquendi may decide this point; at least it does so wherever else it is 
employed. 

How then is the obedience of Christ to make many just or right- 
cous? In the like manner, we may answer, as the disobedience of 
Adam made many sinners, 7. 6.) was a cause or ground of their be- 
coming sinners. Christ, by what he has done and suffered, has 
opened a new and living way of access to God, in which sinners may 
hope for pardon, and grace to become humble and obedient, 7. 6.5) to 
become δίκαιοι, or δίκαιοι ἐκ πίστεως. He is the procuring and merito- 
rious cause or ground of such an acceptance, and through him that 
grace is dispensed which is requisite to make men δίκαιοι in the evan- 
gelical sense. But in this case, abundant as the provision is which 
he has made for sinners, yet penitence and faith are a conditio sine 
qua non to the bestowment of the higher blessings of the gospel. 
And so in the opposite case; some voluntary act of sin, which is 
properly one’s own, would seem to be necessary in order to make 
sure the final and eternal damnation of any one of Adam’s posterity. 
Before this they are indeed in a damnable state, i. 6.5 in imminent 
hazard of damnation (if I may so express it); and it is also true, 
that before repentance and faith sinners are in a state of peculiar 
probation, and in a salvable state, @. e., a state in which they may be 
saved. 

The reader will note, that the future tense (xaracradjoovras) is 
employed in this apodosis. This corresponds to the sentiment im- 
plied in the dmaiwow ζωῆς of ver. 18. The affirmation of Paul then 
is, that the efficacy of Christ’s obedience will bring the many to be 
righteous, holy, or devoted in heart and life to the service of God, 


ROMANS Vv. 19. 261 


If this were already done in the sense in which he expected it to be 
done, and in the sense which the idea of imputed righteousness would 
render necessary, why should he here employ the future tense? ‘The 
fact that he does so, appears to afford evidence that the whole para- 
graph is intended to disclose the virtue and efficacy of the two dis- 
pensations, under the first and second Adam, in and by themselves 
considered and agreeably to their true nature respectively, rather 
than to detail facts merely as such, or to give us a simple historical 
picture. ‘Thus considered, there is no difficulty as to any of the 
“apostle’s declarations. What he declares concerning the influence 
of Adam’s offence, discloses what would be the certain result of that, 
if all men were left to themselves in the condition into which that 
offence brought them; while what he declares respecting the obedi- 
ence of Christ, discloses to us the true nature of gospel grace, its 
all-sufficiency, the certainty of its accomplishing its ends, and its 
adaptedness to the wants and woes of all our race. The apodosis 
here, then, is not so much a narration of mere historical occurrences 
in this case, as it is a declaration of the nature of that which Christ’s 
obedience is adapted to accomplish. Or may it and must it be con- 
strued (the tense being future) of the millennial day of glory—the 
future and universal prevalence of the Christian religion? It strikes 
me that this would be rather a forced construction, and that the 
δίκαιοι here described are those which the work of Christ will be 
efficient in constituting, either inthis world, or in thenext, or in both. 
Aizaso those are called, who at the last day appear before the throne 
of the final Judge, and meet with acceptance through the mercy of a 
Saviour; see Matt. xxv. 87. The appellation in this last passage is 
doubtless given, in reference to the character which they sustain as 
the subjects of sanctifying grace. The meaning of Paul seems 
therefore to be, that as Adam’s offence had been the cause of ruining 
the many, the obedience of Christ should be the cause why the many 
should be justified. In a word, as actual suffering and a dangerous 
and ruinous condition are the lot of all through Adam; so, on the 
other hand, a state of renewed and peculiar probation, attended with 
many privileges and blessings, even such as exceed all that were lost 
by the fall, with the proffer of eternal life and glory, is procured for 
our guilty race by the Lord Jesus Christ. More than this, must 
make the text speak the language of universal actual redemption, and 
thus contradict other parts of the Bible; or else it must limit the 
blessings procured by Christ to the elect only, which, as we have 


202 ROMANS V. 720. 


seen above, is inadmissible on the ground of philology, or even of 
fact. or further remarks, see Excursus.on Rom. vy. 19. — 


CHAP. V. 20, 21. 


THE reader will observe, that in all which the apostle has said in verses 12—19, respecting the 
evils occasioned by Adam and the blessings procured by Christ, he has uttered nothing respect- 
ing any good achieved by the Jewish dispensation as a remedy for these evils. It is very natural 
to suppose that the Jew, ever jealous for the honour of the Mosaic economy, would feel a strong 
objection to the representation which the apostle had made; inasmuch as deliverance from evils 
seems to be wholly attributed by Paul to Christ and his gospel, and nothing of this great work 
to be attributed to the law. I regard verses 20, 21, as designed to answer such an objection 
which the apostle would very readily anticipate. The substance of the answer may be thus ex- 
pressed: ‘ As to the Mosaic law, it was so far from delivering men from sin and its fearful con- 
sequences, that the result of it was just the contrary, viz., the abounding of sin, or at least the 
more conspicuous and striking exhibition of it. Both of these sentiments, indeed, we may sup- 
pose to be included in the assertion made in ver. 20. If the reader is surprised at this, or doubts 
it, let him study attentively Rom. vii. 5—13, where he will find that Paul fully maintains these 
views, and comments at large upon them. The facts simply considered are, that the restraints 
which the law puts upon the evil passions of men, make them more violent in their opposition ; 
the light which the law sheds on the path of duty, makes the men more guilty and inexcusable 
when they sin ; and the holiness, justness, and goodness of the law (Rom. vii. 12). renders sin 
altogether more conspicuous than it otherwise would be (Rom. vii. 13). In all these respects, 
then, the entrance of the law was followed by the abounding of sin; and what is said in chap. 
vii. 5—13 seems to render clear the meaning of the apostle in ver. 20. 

Moreover in vers. 20, 21, the apostle plainly designs to show, that the gospel, instead of being 
superseded by the law in any important respect, was rendered (so to speak) the more necessary. 
The law, instead of diminishing the sins of men, did, on account of their abusing it (Rom. vii. 
11), render them more guilty; and consequently it increased their need of a new dispensation 
of pardoning mercy. And such is the rich provision for mercy under this new dispensation, 
that not only the sins which men committed before the law of Moses was published (vers. 13, 14) 
may be forgiven, but even the more aggravated guilt which they incur who sin against the pre- 
cepts of revelation, may be pardoned. In a word; the law, instead of superseding the gospel, 
rendered it more necessary; and the gospel is fully adequate to every case of need, however 
great this may be; for the sins of men, even of men enlightened by express revelation, great as 
they are, may now be forgiven by that mercy which abounds through Jesus Christ. 

Considered in the point of view now presented, the verses under consideration are pregnant 
with highly important meaning. 


(20) Νόμος, revelation, the Mosate law.—Tagero%r0ev is rendered by 
some, came in unawares ; but this makes no tolerable sense here, and 
moreover it contradicts fact, for the law was introduced with awful 
pomp and solemnity; Ex. xx. Gal. iii. 19. Heb. xii. 18—21, 26, 


2OMANS V. 20. 263 


We must therefore translate: supervened, came in the way of addi- 
tion, preterea introtit (as Beza renders it); ὁ, e., it supervened upon 
the state which preceded Moses, when men were living without a 
revelation. The word σαρεισέρχομαι, in the classics, not only means to 
come in privily or unawares, but also to come in, to make an entrance, 
especially with another or in addition to another. Philo uses the 
word σαρεισῆλθεν, in the same sense as εἰσῆλθεν (see Bretsch. Lex.); 
but I regard the second meaning above given to the word, as the 
_ best in this passage. 

"Iva is said by Chrysostom to be οὐκ αἰτιολογίως ἀλλ᾽ ἐκβάσεως, q. ἃ. 
not causal, 7. 6.) not introducing a reason or cause why the law came 
in, but ecbatic (ἐκβατικός), ἢ ὃ, 6.) showing the effect or consequence ; 
so that we may translate; the law supervened SO THAT offences 
abounded. 

The telic sense of iva, however, might be retained in the verse 
under examination, by construing πλεονάσῃ as we do ἐπερίσσευσεν IN Til. 
2, which there means may appear to abound, may exhibit or display 
its. abounding (like the Piel and Hiphil conjugations of Hebrew 
verbs); and in the like way is περισσεύσῃ used in 2 Cor. iv. 15. In this 
way the sense will be: ‘The law came in order that sin might be 
abundantly exhibited, or that a full display of sin might be made ; 
according with Rom. vii. 13, comp. vil. 5—12. 11.12. In this way 
it is construed by Tholuck, Flatt, and others; and it scarcely needs 
to be said, that the end or design of the law itself was not the 
increase of sin, but the restraint of it. My objection, however, to 
the explanation of these interpreters is, that ver. 21 evidently de- 
mands a sense of σλεονάᾶσῃ different from that which they give. If 
we say: ‘ The law entered in order that the odious nature of sin might 
be more fully and plainly exposed and known;’ then what shall we 
make of ver. 21? It must be this: ‘Where sin was more fully dis- 
played, grace superabounded, viz., above the display, But clearly 
the apostle does not mean to say this, (for what can be the meaning 
of such a declaration?) but that where sin actually abounded, there 
grace actually superabounded. 


* When ‘va is employed in the sense of in order that, to the end that, &c., 7. e., when it is causal, 
it is called by the Greeks τ ¢ Ack 6s, (from téAos,) q. d., indicative of the END or reason why a 
thing is, or is done. "When it is used in the sense of so that, i. e., used in such a way as to denote 
the effect or event of a thing, it is called ἐκβατικός, or in Latin effectivum, i. e., showing the effect 
or event of athing. See a masterly representation of the force of this particle by Tittmann, 
in the Bib. Repository, No. 1 for 1835. Bretsch. Lex. ἵνα No, 2. 


264 ROMANS V. 21. 


We must return then to the ecbatic use of ἵνα here, which Chry- 
sostom has proposed. ‘The meaning of the verse may be thus given; 
‘The Mosaic law which was introduced, instead of diminishing the 
guilt and sins of men, served only to increase them ; for although in 
itself holy, and just, and good, yet being abused and resisted by the 
evil passions of men, it was made the occasion of increasing their 
guilt, because the light which it shed on them, both aggravated their 
offences and rendered them more conspicuous.’ Chap. vil. 5—13, as 
before suggested, is a full and satisfactory comment on these senti- 
ments. Thus understood, it is easy to see that the apostle has a deep 
design in saying what he does, viz., it was his purpose not only to 
convince the Jew that the Mosaic law afforded him no prospect of 
deliverance from the power and penalty of sin, but that it had be- 
come the occasion of his contracting deeper stains of guilt than he 
otherwise would have had, and therefore of plunging him into a more 
hopeless condition. ‘The necessity of deliverance through the par- 
doning mercy of the gospel, does, in this way, become truly conspic- 
uous; and the need of its superabounding grace is thus placed in a 
strong light by the apostle. I observe that Turretin, perceiving the 
difficulties of the other explanations, has for substance adopted the 
same which I have now given; as do Reiche, Gliéckler, Barnes, and 
others. 

(21) But where sin abounded, grace did superabound; ὃ. e., the 
pardoning mercy of the gospel has triumphed even over the sins of 
the Jews, which were greatly aggravated by reason of the light they 
enjoyed. 

Ἵνα ὥσπερ x. τ. λ., 80 that as sin reigned by death, i. e., brought sen- 
tence of death or condemnation upon all men, in like manner also 
grace might reign by justification unto eternal life, through Christ 
Jesus our Lord, i. 6.) grace might reign or have an influence widely 
extended, in the bestowment of justification or pardoning mercy, 
which confers eternal life or happiness on all men who will accept it, 
through Jesus Christ our Lord.—After δικαιοσύνης here, one must 
supply τῆς οὔσης (which is) εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. In this verse, ἐν τῷ ϑανάτῳ 
is the Dative of means or manner; and it stands in antithesis with 
διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Of course δικαιοσύνης does not here mean 
righteousness in the sense of holiness or conformity to the divine law, 
but in the sense of justification, 1. e., God’s righteousness, viz., that 
which he gives or bestows; in the like sense as dixaiwua, δικαιοσύνης, 
and diaiwoy, in vers. 16—18 above. The meaning is, that as sin 


NIM . 


ROMANS V. 21. 265 


exercised its sway over men in occasioning their condemnation 
(Sdvarov), so grace, which superabounds, has exercised its sway in 
procuring a remission of the sentence of condemnation, and bestow- 
ing that justification which is connected with eternal life. Turretin 
makes δικαιοσύνης here mean both justification and sanctification ; 
which is unnecessary, and indeed incapable of being defended. The 
antithesis of δικαμοσύνη, viz. ϑιάνατος, does not mean both sin and con- 
demnation at the same time; of course, then, d:masoodvy should be 


interpreted in such a manner as to have a single and not a double 


sense. . 

The reader will not fail to remark, also, that as ϑάνατος is the 
direct antithesis of ζωὴ αἰώνιος here, so it must mean more than tem- 
poral death merely ; nay, more than any limited term of misery in a 
future world; unless, indeed, it can be shown that the happiness of 
the righteous is limited. But this none will attempt to show. How 
then can the misery of the wicked be shown to be temporary ? That 
Yévarog is here employed in the same sense as in vers. 12—19, im- 
presses itself, as it seems to me, spontaneously on the mind of every 
reader not misled by a priori reasonings. 

It should also be noted, that ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ χάρις of course cannot 
be applied to the number of its subjects here; for how could grace 
superabound in this respect, when all men were sinners? It plainly 
has reference, therefore, to abounding sin which existed after the 
law was introduced. What the apostle means to affirm, is, that how- 
ever much sin was aggravated under this new order of things, yet 
such was the greatness of gospel grace that it triumphed even over 
this aggravated guilt. In other words, the salvation of the gospel 
is so ample, that it may be extended to all men however depraved 
and deserving of punishment they may be; and those who are under 
the law and have transgressed it, do of all men most need the sal- 
vation of the gospel. 


266 : ROMANS VI.—VIIL. 


CHAP. VI.—VIILL. 


WHEN the apostle (chap. i.—ii.) had shown the guilt of all men, both Jews and Gentiles, and 
tlat none could escape the wrath to come except by the mercy of God through Christ, he repre- 
sents the Jew as objecting to such a sentiment, on the ground that the fidelity of God, in respect 
to the promise made to Abraham and his seed would be called in question by it. To this the 
apostle replies, that no such objection could be made; for God is to be regarded as faithful to his 
promises, even if all men are thereby convicted of being unfaithful to their engagements. The 
faithfulness of God is in fact the more conspicuous, when he treats those who have sinned, and who 
continue impenitent, according to their real desert. 

The Jew, however, not satisfied with this, cbjects that there would in this way be encourage- 
ment for men to sin; inasmuch as the divine glory would be the more conspicuous, in consequence 
of the display of pardoning mercy. But this objection the apostle repels, with strong language 
of disapprobation, iii, 5—S. He does not, however, proceed to canvass it, because he has other 
things which he is desirous to say, before he enters particularly into the consideration of such an 
objection. 

These he exhibits in chap. iii. 9, to v.21. After all which he here says, and especially after 
such an exhibition of superabounding grace as is made in chap. v. 12—21, it is natural to expect 
that the Jew would renew, atleast in his own mind, the same objection as before; and this, with 
more appearance ofreason than he then had. Accordingly, we find the apostle representing him 
as immediately objecting to the views of gospel grace which he had expressed, in the following 
words: “ Shall we continue, then, in sin, that grace may abound? Chaps. vi. vii. viii. are de- 
signed to canvass the great subject which this objection brings forward, and fully to illustrate it. 
The course of thought appears to be as follows: 

1. The very profession and nature of the Christian religion are directly opposed to continuance in 
sin ; for he who is “ baptized into the death of Christ,” if sincere in his professions, must renounce 
sin and mortify his carnal appetites, vi. 2—11. 

2. The remainder of chap. vi. forms a peculiar argument, if I may so call it, with respect to 
the subject under the apostle’s consideration, viz., whether a dispensation of grace allows its sub- 
jects to sin. Vers. 12, 13, are an exhortation to guard against sin; which is occasioned by the 
preceding considerations that the writer has proffered. But in ver. 14 Paul places his subject 
in a new attitude. He had before shown that Christianity, from its very nature, stands opposed 
to sin, and implies the subduing and mortifying of all evil passions and desires. He now yen- 
tures to suggest, not only that there is no good ground for the allegation of the objector, viz., that 
the doctrine of grace would encourage men to continue in sin, but that this very doctrine furnishes 
powerful motives, yea, more powerful ones than those which a dispensation of law furnishes, to 
excite men to the practice of holiness. He begins by saying, that ‘sin will not have dominion 
over Christians, for they are not under law, but under grace.’ ‘This is as much as to say, thatif 


3 Π..:-:. 


ROMANS VI.—VIII. 267 


they were still under the law (in the sense here meant) sin would have dominion over them ; but 
inasmuch as they are under grace, this will not be the case, verse 14. By being wnder the law, 
he means being subjected to it and devoted to it in the sense in which the Jews (as legalists) were, 
viz., confidently expecting sanctification from it. Being under grace means, being servants of grace, 
i. ¢., subject to its influence and obedient to its requisitions. Verses 16—19 necessarily lead us 


_ to such an explanation. 


The subject thus introduced is one of vast magnitude and importance. If it be true, that a 
system of grace ts the only one which now proffers adequate means of SANCTIFICATION as well 
as pardon, then is the importance of the gospel rendered doubly conspicuous. This is what 
the apostle intimates in verse 14, and what he goes on through the remainder of chapter vi., and 
also through chapters vii. viii. to confirm and illustrate. That this essential circumstance has 


been so often overlooked by commentators, has been the occasion of much that is irrelevant and 


unsatisfactory in their remarks upon this pas8age. 

The first illustration of the power of gospel grace to subdue sin, is drawn from the relation 
which the Christian sustains toward the gospel or χάρις. He has become the servant of grace; 
consequently, he must yield it his obedience; and by becoming the servant of grace, he has re- 
nounced his subjection to sin; consequently, he must act in a manner that accords with the rela- 
tion which he sustains, i. e., he should live in a holy manner, verses 16—20. And thus the 
Christian must be led to act, also, on the ground that the consequences of obeying sin and of 
obeying grace are so unspeakably different and important, verses 21—23. 

Thus far the apostle has employed comparison, in order to illustrate and enforce his sentiment, 
I mean, that under the figure of Christians being the servants of grace, he has signified their obli- 
gation to yield obedience. This is laying a good foundation; for obligation to be holy surely lies 
at the basis of the Christian’s duty. In the next place, he brings into view the consequences of 
obedience to sin and holiness. . Thus much then (he would seem to say, by all this,) belongs to 
a system of grace; and in respect to obligation and penalty, it is in no wise behind a system of 
law. It holds forth both the obligation to duty, and the encouragement to it; while the awful 
penalty of the divine law for the neglect of it, ὁ, 6., for sin, remains in full force under the 
gosple. 

This, however, is negative argument; if [may so speak. I mean, that it does not directly 
prove what is intimated in verse 14, viz., the superiority of grace to law in influencing us to lead 
a holy life. But it proves, that even in those respects in which the law might seem to claim a 
high pre-eminence, it has none. The gospel confers as high obligation and threatens as high 
penalties. In both respects it is opposed to sin; its obligations are directly contrary to sin; its 
consequences are just the reverse of those which follow sin. In all these respects, then, we may 
truly affirm of the gospel as much as could be affirmed of the law. 

3. Thus much in order to show that a system of grace is not behind a system of law, either in 
regard to obligations or penalties. ΑἸ] this prepares the way to accomplish the subsequent part 
of the apostle’s design; which is to show that the law (in the sense to which Jewish legalists ad- 
hered to it) is virtually and substantially renounced, by giving ourselves to Christ in the way of the 
gospel, vii. 1—4. This is ‘an important point, and a great advance toward the attainment of the 
apostle’s design. 

But he does not stop even here. He goes on (vii. 5, 6) to assert that the law, instead of being 
an effectual means of sanctifying men and making them truly holy, is in reality the occasion 
of their plunging into deeper guilt; while grace produces just the contrary effect. This is the 
ultimate and highest point at which Paul aims, in order to wean legalists from their unwarrant- 
able attachment to the law. That he may fully accomplish his object, he shows, first, how the 
law, instead of delivering us from sin, is the occasion of our being plunged deeper into it, vii 
7—12. Secondly, he removes the objections which one might naturally raise against the law on 
such a ground, vii. 13—25. 

4. He next goes on to show that grace operates upon men in a manner entirely different from 
that of law, viii. 1—11. 

5. In the remainder of chapter viii., he insists on the duties and privileges that result from such 
a state of grace. 

If the reader will now look back, for a moment, he will see a regular series of thought,’ all per- 


268 ROMANS VI.—VIIL. 


taining to the same great subject, from the commencement of chap. vi. to the end of chap. viii. To 
the apostle’s plan of justification by grace alone, the natural and most formidable objection at first 
view would be, that such a doctrine would lay no restraint upon sin, but rather encourage it. 
Already had he adverted to this objection, in chap. iii. 5—8. But with chap. vi. the formal dis- 
cussion of the subject which is introduced by it commences. The simple outlines of the argument 
and illustration are, (1) The very profession and nature of Christianity imply a renunciation of 
sin, vi, 1—11. (2) The gospel lays more effectual constraint upon us to abstain from sin than the 
law can do, vi. 14; for, (@) By becoming servants of it, we must yield our obedience to it, vi. 
16—20. (δὴ It sets before us the highest possible rewards, and renders them attainable, vi. 
21—23. (3) We renounce our legality, é. e., our dependence on the law as the effectual means of 
sanctification, when we become affianced to Christ. - We sustain a new relation in consequence 
of this, and are laid under new obligations which are of a more forcible nature, vii. 1—4. (4) 
The law, instead of restraining and subduing our sins, is even the occasion of their being aggra- 
vated, of plunging us into deeper condemnation, vii. 5—11; yet this is not chargeable upon the 
nature of the law, which in itself is holy and just and good, but on our evil passions which abuse 
it, while our consciences testify to the excellence and purity of the law itself, vii. 12—25. Con- 
sequently sanctification, as well as justification, can be expected not from the law, but only from 
a dispensation of grace. (5) Such is the actual effect of grace; it subdues and mortifies the 
principles of sin within us, and affords us the effectual guidance and aid of the Spirit of God in 
the discharge of our duty, viii. 1—11. Consequently, (6) The obligation to live in a holy manner 
may now be urged on Christians with the hope of success, for they have aid which is adequate for 
every time of need; yea, which will make them to triumph over all the troubles, and sorrows, and 
trials of life, and to persevere even unto the end in the way of holiness and truth, viii. 12—39. 

I hope the reader will pardon this partial repetition of this course of thought in chap. vi.—viii.; 
which I have indulged in merely for the sake of being explicitly understood. The attainment οὗ 
correct views in regard to this course, is a sine qua non to aright exegesis of the whole. How can 
we correctly explain a writer, unless we rightly apprehend his aim and the scope of his discourse? 
It is impossible ; and therefore it is of fundamental importance that we should obtain correct views 
of the apostle’s design in the chapters above-named, before we can safely advance to the particu- 
lar explanation of their several parts. All form one harmonious whole; all resolve themselves, 
at last, into the simple design of showing, not only that the grace of the gospel is not justly liable 
to the charge of encouraging sin, but that it does in fact proffer to sinners the only hopeful and 
effectual means of SANCTIFICATION, as well as justification ; yea, that it assures them of these means 
being effectual even to the end, so that their hopes can never be disappointed. 

If it be asked why sanctification is here so much insisted on, rather than justification; the an- 
ewer is, that the apostle had before most fully shown, in chap. i.—iv., that justification by the 
law is impossible. The question now with him is, whether this plan of salvation, viz., gratui- 
tous justification, encourages the sinner to continue in sin. This question he treats in the manner 
stated above; and thus shows, that the grace of the gospel is as necessary to us in respect to our 
sanctification, as it is in respect to our justification. A noble triumph indeed of true Christian 
principles over all opposition and objections! One too which shows, that a system of law strictly 
adhered to, can only end in the aggravated ruin of sinners; and that therefore our only hope of 
salvation is in him, “who hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for 
us.” 

If the reader has still any doubt, whether I have correctly stated the general outlines of the 
apostle’s design and argument, let him look back on chaps i.—iy., and see that the great discussion 
concerning gratuitous justification is there terminated; as is evident from chap. v., which 
x8 designed to point out the sequel or consequences of such justification. Let him look at the 
nature of the subject proposed by the question in vi. 1, and the arguments and illustra- 
tions which follow. Let him duly consider the assertion in vi. 14, with the sequel in verses 
15—20. Let him then see, in verses 21—23, that καρπὸς εἰς ἁγιασμόν is still before the 
writer’s mind. In passing to vii. 1—3, 4, let him note, that verse 4 sums up the object of 
all by ἵνα καρποφορήσωμεν τῷ Θεῷ, Τὴ reading verses 5, 6, he must observe, that the law is set 
forth as being even the occasion of aggravating our carnal desires, instead of mortifying and 
subduing them; all of which shows the insufliciency of it as a meaus of sanctification. Verses 


oe 


ROMANS VI. 1, 2, 269 


7—11 only expand and enforce this idea; while verses 12—23 defend it from abuse. Chap. viii, 
opens as if the subject of justification were a prominent object of the writer’s attention ; but verses 
2—4 show that this is only in consequence of justification being connected with sanctification. 
The special object of God’s sending his Son, as considered in verses 3, 4, is katakpivew τὴν ἁμαρτίαν 
ἐν τῃ σαρκί, and ἵνα τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν. And so the sequel shows that sancti- 
Jying grace subdues sin, and secures filial obedience. Hence, in verses 12—17, the exhortation 
subjoined to the preceding context is, that Christians “ should not live kata σάρκα. And finally, 
it is the sanctified, filial, obedient spirit, inspired by the gospel and given by the Spirit of God in 
connection with it, which supports us under all sorrows and trials, and will end in complete and 
everlasting triumph. On the face of all this course of thought, then, there lies what has already 
been attributed toit. 

There is another circumstance still, which affords no small ground for confirming what has been 

stated above. Let the reader look back onee more to chap., and see that the apostle, after having 

finished his discussion with regard to the subject of justification by grace, goes on to declare the 
happy fruits of this, viz., cheering support under all the sorrows of life, and assurance of final hap- 
piness in the kingdom of glory, through the redemption of Christ. Just so in chap. viii. 14—39. 
When Paul has completed the discussion of his second grand theme, viz., the sanctifying nature of 
gospel grace, he goes on to show, first, how it triumphs over sufferings and sorrows, inspiring a joyful 
hope; and, secondly, that it will assuredly bring the believer, at last, safe to glory. The parallel- 
ism, as to the general course of thought, is so exact between chap. v. and viii. 14—39, that no 
one can help perceiving it. There is then good ground to believe, from this circumstance, in ad- 
dition to the other evidence produced above, that the apostle had, in his own view, here com- 
pleted a second prominent topic of discussion ; just as, at the end of chap. iv., he had completed 
his first one. The rest of his epistle is employed in canvassing various objections raised by 
Judaizing opponents; and in delivering various precepts and exhortations suited to the condition 
of the church at Rome. 

If the general course of thought is now before usin an intelligible manner, we are prepared to 
advance once more to the consideration of particulars. 


(1) Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; words of the objector; viz., ‘ What shall be said, 
now, as to such a sentiment as that just uttered, viz., that where sin 
abounded, grace did superabound? Does it not follow that one may 
well say : Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound?’ The 
meaning of the question is: Since God is glorified in the abounding 
of his grace; and since this abounds in proportion to the sin which 
is committed: then why should we not go on to sin, as the glory of 
God will in this way be made to abound? 

᾿Εσιμενοῦμεν, shall we continue? But all the uncial Codd., many 
Codd. minusc., Copt., Codd. Lat., Damasec., Augustine ; and after 
these, Grotius, Hammond, Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, Reiche, 
prefer ἐσιμένωμεν (Subj.) which would mean, must” or should we con- 
tinue, &c.? The latter seems to be the preferable reading. 

(2) ᾿Απεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, dead to sin, means, to renounce sin, to 
become, as it were, insensible to its exciting power or influence (asa 
dead person is incapable of sensibility); or, as Chrysostom well ex- 
presses it, μήκετι ὑπακούειν [τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ], ἀλλὰ μένειν ἀκίνητον ὥσπερ τὸν “εκρόν» 


270 ROMANS VI. 3. 


Comp. the phraseology in Gal. ii. 19. 1 Pet. ii. 24. Rom. vii. 4. 
The Greek and Latin writers employed the like phraseology ; 6. g., 
τέθνηκε μοι (Libanius); mortuus tidi sum, Plautus. So of the anti- 
thetic expression: 6. g., ἐμοὶ ζῇν (Alciphr.); ζῆν τῇ γαστρί (Diony. 
Halic.). In all such cases, a sense of such a nature as that given 
above was attached to this phraseology. 

Πῶς ἔτι ζήσομεν ἐν αὐτῷ ; how shall we any longer live in it? ὦ, 6.» 
how shall we who have renounced sin, and profess to be insensible to 
its influence, any more continue to practise it, or to be influenced by 
it? The Fut. tense here expresses not simply what is declarative 
but what has relation to duty, viz., what can or ought to be done; 
N. Test. Gramm. § 125. Note 5. 

There has been not a little discussion and controversy, in respect 
to the meaning and design of the apostle’s language here. To me 
it appears not at all to be involved in obscurity. When the objector 
asks (ver. 1), whether we should continue in sin, he means, beyond all 
doubt: ‘ May we go ontosin? May we then still continue the prac- 
tice of it? ‘To this question the apostle answers in the negative ; 
and this negative he expresses by the phrase ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ. 
This must therefore mean, ‘to refrain from the practice of sin, no 
longer to continue in it, no more to be guided or influenced by it.’ 
In a word, it means just the opposite of ζήσομεν ἐν αὐτῇ the significa- 
tion of which is, to continue in the practice of it, or to find our plea-- 
sure in it. 170 become dead to sin or to die to sin plainly means, then, 
to become insensible to its influence, to be unmoved by it ; in other 
words, to renounce it and refrain from the practice of it. That such 
is the condition of true Christians, the apostle now proceeds to show, 
in suggesting what is implied by the very nature of a Christian pro- 
fession with its initiatory rites. 

(3) ᾿Εβαπτίσθημεν εἰς τὺν Χριστὸν ᾿Τησοῦν. The sense of this depends on 
the meaning of the formula βαπτίζειν εἰς riva—or βαπτίζειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα 
τινός. (a) In regard to βαπτίζειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα the noun ὄνομα is, no doubt, 
to be regarded as expletive ; as DY in Hebrew often is. So in the 
Jewish formula of baptizing proselytes, if the proselyte was a servant, 
the master, at his baptism, made a declaration whether he intended 
to make the servant free as a proselyte, or to have him still remain 
a servant. ‘This declaration was made thus: 1" J2 py? nab, he 
is baptized into the name of a freeman; or 12Y ΧΡ he is δαρ- 
tized into the name of a servant. So Matt. xxviii. 19, baptized εἰς τὸ 
ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὺς, καὶ τοῦ ὙἹοῦ, καὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου; which is the same 


ROMANS VI. 3. 271 


as baptized εἰς τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ τὸν Tidy, καί τὸ Τηνεϊμὼὰ τὸ “Aysov. Accord- 
ingly we find ὄνομα omitted in our text, as also in 1 Cor. x. 2. Gal. iii. 
27; it is used, however, in Acts vill. 16. xix. 5. 1 Cor. i. 18, 15. 

(b) The sense of the whole formula is more difficult to be ascer- 
tained. Most commentators, after Vitringa (Obs. Sac. IIT. 22), ex- 
plain εἰς as meaning INTO the acknowledgment of ; with an implica- 
tion of affiance, subjection, discipleship, &c. But the formula in 
1 Cor. xii. 13, πάντες εἰς ἕν σῶμά ἐβαπτίσθημεν, seems not to accord with 
such an explanation. Here εἰς plainly designates participation, and 
the meaning of the phrase is, that by baptism we come to belong to 
one body, to participate in one body, to be members of one body. In 
like manner we may say: By baptism we come to belong (ina spe- 
cial and peculiar sense), to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So the 
apostle speaks of being baptized into (and so of belonging to) Moses, 
1 Cor. x. 2; to Paul, 1 Cor. 1.13. In this way all the passages of 
this nature may be construed alike, and the sense in all will be good. 
The idea is, for substance, that ‘ by baptism we become consecrated. 
to any person or thing, appropriated (as it were) to any person or 
thing, so as to belong to him or to it, in a manner peculiar and 
involving a special relation, and consequent special duties and obli- 
gations.’ 

This sense is such an one as fits the passage under examination. 
Thus interpreted it would mean: ‘ As many of us as have become 
devoted to Christ by baptism ; or as many of us as have been conse- 
crated to Christ by baptism, or have been laid under peculiar obliga- 
tions, or have taken upon us a peculiar relation to him, by being 
baptized” The word ὅσοι 15 employed by the Greeks to designate 
the meaning whoever, Ke., ὦ. 6.) all without any exception. 

Eig τὸν ϑάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν, we have been baptized into his death, 
ὦ, 6.) we have, as it were, been made partakers of his death by bap- 
tism; we have come under a special relation to his death ; we have 
engaged to die unto sin, as he died for it; we have a certain com- 
munion or participation in death to sin; comp. Rom. vi. 6. Gal. ii. 
19. The being baptized into his death, therefore, is an’ internal, 
moral, spiritual thing ; of which the external rite of baptism is only 
a symbol ; for the relation symbolized by baptism is in its own nature 
spiritual and moral. The participation in the death of Christ, of 
which Paul here speaks, is surely something more than what is ex- 
ternal; it is therefore of a moral or spiritual nature, of which the 
external rite can be regarded only as a symbol. Glockler finds in 


272 ROMANS VI. 4. 


the whole verse, indeed, an assertion of a real transcendental union 
to Christ; by being ‘ plunged as it were into him.’ And being bap- 
tized into his death, is “ versenken ganz und gar in den Tod,” ὦ. 6.» 
to plunge entirely into his death ! What the meaning can be of such 
semi-literal expressions, remains for those who ‘traverse regions 
transcendental,’ to explain. 

(4) Συνετάφημεν οὖν x. τ. A. we have been buried with him, then, by 
baptism into his death, i. e.. we are (by being baptized into his death) 
buried as he was, σὺν erdégnwev; where σὺν means like, in like man- 
ner with; comp. ver. 6; also Rom. viii. 17. Col. 111. 1, where any 
other sense οἵσυν is out of question; 2 Tim. vii. 11,to which the 
same remark will apply. 

Most commentators have maintained, that συνετάφημεν has here a 
necessary reference to the mode of literal baptism, which, they say, 
was by immersion ; and this, they think, affords ground for the em- 
ployment of the image used by the apostle, because immersion under 
water may be compared to durial under the earth. It is difficult, 
perhaps, to procure a patient re-hearing for this subject, so long 
regarded by some as being out of fair dispute. Nevertheless, as my 
own conviction is not, after protracted and repeated examinations, 
accordant here with that of commentators in general, I feel con- 
strained briefly to state my reasons for it. 

The first is, that in the verse before us there is a plain antithesis; 
one so plain that it is impossible to overlook it. If now συνετέφημεν 
is to be interpreted in a physical way, ἴ. 6.5 as meaning burial in the 
water in a physical sense, where is the corresponding physical burial, 
in the opposite part of the antithesis or comparison? Plainly there 
is no such physical idea or reference in this other part. The resur- 
rection here spoken of is entirely moral and spiritual, for it is one 
which Christians have already experienced during their present life; 
as may be fully seen by comparing vers. 5—11, below. I take it 
for granted, that after ἡμεῖς in ver. 4, éyegdevreg is implied: since the 
nature of the comparison, the preceding ὡς ἐγέρθη Χριστός, and also ver. 
5, make this entirely plain. 

If we turn now to the passage in Col. ii. 12 (which is altogether 
parallel with the verse under examination, and has very often been 
agitated by polemic writers on the subject of baptism), we shall 
there find more conclusive reason still, to argue as above respecting 
the nature of the antithesis presented. ‘ Wehave been buried with 
him [Christ] by baptism.” What now is the opposite of this ? What 


ROMANS VI. 4. 273 


is the kind of resurrection from this grave in which Christians have 
been buried? ‘The apostle tells us; “We have risen with him 
[Christ], by faith wrought by the power of God [τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ 
Θεοῦ], who raised him [Christ] from the dead.” Here, then, there 
is a resurrection by faith, 1. e., a spiritual and moral one. Why then 
should we look for a physical meaning in the antithesis? If one 
part of the antithesis is to be construed in a manner entirely moral 
or spiritual, why should we not construe the other in like manner, 
provided it is susceptible of such an interpretation? ΤῸ understand 
συνετάφημεν as designating a literal burial under water, is to under- 
stand it in a manner vein the laws of interpretation appear to for- 
bid. . 

(9) Nothing can be plainer, than that the word συνετάφημεν, in 
Rom. vi. 4, is equivalent in sense to the word ἀπεθάνομεν in ver. 8. 
It seems to hee adopted merely for the sake of rendering more striking 
the image of a resurrection, which the apostle applies in the other 
part of the antithesis. ‘A resurrection from the grave,’ is a natural 
phrase when one is speaking with respect to the subject of a resur- 
rection; see John y. 28, 29; comp. Dan. xii.2. In accordance with 
this statement the context does most plainly speak, both in respect 
to Rom. vi. 4 and Col. ii. 12, For in respect to Rom. vi. 4, the 
apostle goes on in the very next verse (as is usual with him), to 
present the same idea which is contained in ver. 4, in a different 
costume. Ver. 5 (which is a mere epexegesis of ver. 4) says, Jf we 
have been homogeneous (σύμφυτοι, t. @, like, of the same kind) with 
Christ IN HIS DEATH, then shall we be in his resurrection. The 
same idea and explanation is repeated in ver. 8—dredcvowev— συζήσομεν; 
and the whole is summarily explained in ver. 11; So reckon ye your- 
selves to be νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίῳ, ζῶντας δὲ τῷ Θεῷ. 

Iixactly in the same manner has the apostle gone on to explain 
᾿ συνταφέντες In Col. 11, 12. In ver. 13 he adds, “ You vex eo%¢in your 

offences .... συνεζωοποίησε, has he [G od] made alive with him [Christ], 
having forgiven us all our offences.” 

There can be no real ground for question, then, that by συνετάφη- 
μεν, ἴῃ both cases, is meant for substance neither more nor less than 
by ἀπεθάνομεν, νεκροί, &. The epexegesis, added in both cases, seems 
to make this quite plain. The reason why συνετάφημεν is used in 
Rom. vi. 4 and in Col. ii. 12 seems to be, that the language employed 
may be a full antithesis of the word resurrection, which is used in 
the corresponding part of the comparison. ‘“ You who were buried 

5 


274 ROMANS VI. 4. 


with Christ,” gives energy to the expression. A dead body would 
indicate that life had departed; but a body dead and buried, would 
indicate more thoroughly the entire removal of it. Such is the 
strong language, evidently to be taken in a figurative sense, which 
the apostle has here employed. 

(c) But my principal difficulty in respect to the usual exegesis of 
συνετάφημεν is, that the image or figure of immersion, baptism, is, so 
far as 1 know, nowhere else in Scripture employed as a symbol of 
burial inthe grave. Nor can 1 think that it is a very natural symbol 
of burial. ‘The obvious import of washing with water, or immersing 
in water, is, that it is symbolical of purity, cleansing, purification. 
But how will this aptly signify burying in the grave, the place of 
corruption, loathsomeness, and destruction ? 

(d) Lastly, the reader can scarcely fail to remark, that the com- 
parison, as continued by the apostle through verses 5—9, is built 
wholly upon the idea of a death like to that of Christ, and not of a 
burial. The unity of the allegory or continued figure would be 
destroyed, then, by supposing that the principal circumstance in the 
mind of the apostle was the burial and not the death of Christ. 

For these reasons I feel inclined to doubt the usual exegesis of 
the passage before us, and to believe that the apostle had in view 
only a burying which is moral and spiritual; for the same reasons 
that he had a moral and spiritual (not a physical) resurrection in 
view, in the corresponding part of the antithesis. Indeed, what else 
but a moral burying can be meant, when the apostle goes on to say, 
We are buried with him [not by baptism only, but] by baptism INTO 
HIS DEATH? Of course it will not be contended, that a literal 
physical burying is here meant, but only a moral one. And although 
the words into his death, are not inserted in Col. ii. 12; yet as the 
following verse there shows, they are implied. In fact, it is plain 
that reference is here made to baptism, because, when that rite was 
performed, the Christian promised to renounce sin, and to mortify all 
his evil desires, and thus to die unto sin that he might live unto God. 
I cannot see, therefore, that there is any more necessary reference 
here to the modus of baptism, than there is to the modus of the 
resurrection. ‘The one may as well be maintained as the other. 

I am aware, however, that some one may say ; ‘1 admit that burial 
with Christ has a moral sense, and only such an one; but then the 
language in which this idea is conveyed (συνετάφημεν), is evidently 
borrowed from the custom of immersion.’ In reply to this, I must 


Cc 


ROMANS vi. 4. 275 


refer such an one to the considerations under (c) above. The pos- 
sibility of the usage I admit; but to show that the image is natural 
and obvious, and that it is a part of Scripture usage elsewhere, is what 
seems to be necessary in order to produce entire satisfaction to the 
mind of a philological inquirer. At any rate, I cannot at present 
think the case to be clear enough to entitle any one to employ this 
passage, with confidence, in a contest respecting the mode of baptism. 
In this general view of the subject I find Reiche to concur. 

Ἴνα, in order that, to the intent that; which may refer to the inten- 
tion of mind in the individual who took baptism on himself, or the 
end which the nature of the case required to be kept in view.— Διὰ 
τῆς δόξης (== 223) glorious presence, 7. 6., glorious display of power, 
might, or majesty. The Hebrew '?, might, power, is sometimes 
rendered δόξα by the Seventy ; 6. g., Ps. Ixviii. 35 (Ixvii. 34). Is. xii. 
2. The idea really conveyed by διὰ τῆς δόξης here, can be satisfac- 
torily explained, however, only by a reference to the Hebrew 1123, 
which was employed to designate the divine presence as being at- 
tended with a supernatural brightness or splendour. In the same 
sense 122% was employed by the Rabbinic writers; comp. Matt. 
xxvii. ὃ. Luke xxiv. 4, which seem to disclose that to which διὰ 
τῆς δόξης here refers. Bretschneider (Lex.) has rendered the phrase 
in Dei gloriam; by a liberty which διά before the Genitive does not 
seem to allow. διά signifying on account of, for the sake of, as an 
end or object, must have the Accusative after it; at least I have 
not been satisfied with any proof which I have seen, that it admits 
the Genitive in such asense. Compare, as to sentiment, Col. 11. 12. 
Eph. i. 19. 

Ἡμεῖς, t. 5 ἐγερδέντες, for this latter word plainly must be added 
here, in order to make good the comparison commenced with ἠγέρθη 
above.— Ev χαινότητι τῆς ζωῆς περιπατήσωμεν, WE [being raised from the 
dead] should live a new life; i. e., as we have been made like unto 
Christ in his death, so must we also in his resurrection, 1, 6.5 we 
must, like him, live a new life after our resurrection. Καινότητι τῆς 
ζωῆς 1 regard asa Hebraistic form, in which the first noun supplies 
the place of the adjective. See Heb. Gramm. ὃ 440. ὁ. See further 
explanations given in ver. 11. 

It will occur to the distinguishing reader, at once, that the com- 
parison here instituted by the apostle, is not one in all respects of 
like with like. Christ died FoR sin, 7. 6.) on account of it, in order 
to make expiation for it; the believer dies To sin, that is, he mor- 


210 ROMANS IV. Ὁ. 


tifies and subdues it, he becomes more or Jess insensible to its 
influence, or at least he successfully resists it. Christ had no sin of 
his own to mortify ; the believer’s dying consists in the mortification 
of his own sins. Even so it is with the resurrection. Christ rose 
physically from the dead: the believer, in the present life, rises 
spiritually from a state of moral death. Christ lived physically 
and naturally a new life; the believer lives spiritually and morally 
a new life. 

On the whole, this is one of those cases of comparison, δ not 
affording strict analogies throughout, can be brought to bear only 
in a general way, and will not stand the test of being urged into 
particulars. It were easy to bring many instances of the like nature 
from the Scriptures; but the attentive reader will of course observe 
them. Those who insist, in all cases, on exact similitudes through- 
out in comparisons, will find difficulty enough here; for nothing 
can be more evident, than that merely some general traits of simili- 
tude exist between the two cases. Christ died for sin—a painful 
death ; the believer in dying to sin suffers pain and distress, he 
‘crucifies the old man with his deeds:’ Christ died in order to 
destroy the power of sin; the believer, in becoming dead to sin, 
destroys its power or influence; Christ rose from the dead to live in 
wholly a new state; the believer who is quickened, must also live in 
a new state. Here the similitude ends: and here it should end, for 
the writer evidently did not design to push it any farther. Turretin, 
in speaking of ver. 4, says truly and forcibly: “Non tam est 
argumentum directum . . . quam vivida atque elegans hujus argu- 
menti illustratio, et quasi pictura pro more orientalium hominum ac 
specialiter Judeorum, qui ejusmodi figuris atque emblematibus 
plurimum delectabantur.” 


CHAP. VI. 5—11. 


THe main idea or essential features of the apostle’s comparison being thus introduced, he now 
proceeds to expand the thought, and to present it in a variety of costume appropriate to 
the nature of the case, and serving to impress the whole upon the mind of the reader, (1) 
We have been intimately connected (σύμφντοι, lit. grown unitedly), with Christ as to his death, 
i. ¢., we have died in respect to sin, as he died on account of it; and consequently we must 
be like him as to rising from a state of death to a new life, ver. 5. (2) Our old man, ἡ. ¢., 
our sinful passions and desires, is crucified, for the very purpose, that our bodies which incline 


ak... 


ROMANS VI. 3. 277 


us to sin, should no more be subject to the power of sin ; for (to carry the figure through), he who 
is dead, is freed from sin; consequently we, being dead to sin, should be freed from its power, 
vers. 6, 7. (3) If then we are in fact dead with Christ, 7. 6.,ὄ if we have died to sin as he died for 
it, we must believe of course that we shall live with him, 7. ¢., live a new life, as he lived a new 
one ; for as Christ, when once risen from the dead, could no more be subject to the dominion of 
death (since he could die on account of sin but once), and as he now lives for ever a divine and 
heavenly life, so Christians must die once for all to sin, ὁ. e., renounce it for ever, and live con- 
tinually unto God, ἡ. ¢., live a holy and heavenly life, vers. 8—11. 

The reader will see that the same idea for substance is kept before the mind, through verses 
5—11. But he will.also see, that there are shades of difference in the diction and method of 
illustration. Verse 5, for example, presents the simple idea in a generic way of being connected 
with Christ as to his death and resurrection. Verses 6, 7, present the specific idea of crucifying 
our old man (as Christ was crucified), in order that being put to death, he might no more lead us 
tosin. Verses S—11 present the general notion of dying and living with Christ, ἡ, 6., as he did, 
but with the accessory idea, that as he died once for all, and can never die again, but lives for 


- ever a new life, so we must, in dying to sin, die once for all, 7. ¢., renounce it for ever, and ever 


live a new life. —How, then, (for such is the question implied at the close of all this), can Chris- 
tians continue in sin that grace may abound? There is no foundation for such an objection to 
the doctrines of grace. 


(5) Er γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν, uf we have become homogeneous, if we 
have become cognate. So σύμφυτοι must be explained, if philology is 
to be our guide. Σύμφυτος and συμφύης appear to be synonymous; and 
both mean grown up together, sprung up together, and so (second- 
arily) intimately connected together, cognate, &c. Of the whole grain, 
growing together in one field, the Greeks would say, It is σύμφυτος. 
The evident meaning here is for substance the same as ὅμοιος, like, 
homogeneous, %. 6.0 participating in, or intimately connected with, as 
to something. Therefore we may render, Jf we have become con- 
nected or homogeneous by a likeness in respect to his death, τοῦ ϑανάτου 
being the Gen. objecti, 7. ¢., the object in respect to which we have 
become like to Christ ; or we may translate ; if we have become cog- 
nate in the likeness of his death, the latter clause showing that in 
respect to which we have become cognate. The meaning is: If we 
have become dead to sin, as he died for sin; then shall we in like 
manner live a new life, when risen from our [moral] death, as he 
lived a new one after his resurrection.’ There is no good founda- 
tion for the translation planted, as φύω does not mean to plant, but 
to grow, spring up, become nascent, &c. Besides, the nature of the 
imagery here employed is obscured by such a version. . 

Τεγόναμεν, we have become and still are; the Perfect often has, as 
here, a continuative sense, New Test. Gramm. § 125. Note 3. a. 
The reader will observe, that the sentence is conditional (εἰ γάρ) ; 
but as the Indic. Perf. is here used in the protasis, and the Ind. Fut. 


278 ROMANS Vi. 6. 


in the apodosis, it is what is called a simple or absolute conditional 
proposition, in which the condition stated in the protasis is taken for 
granted, and the apodosis is then stated as designating a thing that 
is necessarily consequent; New Test. Gramm. § 129. a. 

᾿Αλλὰ καί, then surely. ᾿Αλλά is concessive, ἴ. e., it implies that 
what precedes it is conceded ; and in this way it comes to stand in 
hypothetical sentences like the present, where deductions are made; 
although in mere simple conclusions of a logical nature, ἀλλά is not 
employed. The real fact seems to be, that this formula implies an 
οὗ μόνον 62 before it, or some declaration which involves what amounts 
to this. So here, ‘If... [then not so only]. . . but also, ζο. 
᾿Αλλά of itself does not mean surely ; but standing in such a connec- 
tion as has just been pointed out, we may convey the meaning of 
ἀλλὰ καί by then surely, or then at least or certainly.—The Fut. 


ἐσόμεθα may be regarded here as expressive of ebligation ; for so the 
Fut. is not unfrequently employed; 6. 5.. Matt. iv. 10. Luke ui. 10, 


12, 14. Judg. xiii. 13, 14 (Sept.) Deut. vi. 5 (Sept.) Matt. xxii. 37, 
39. Ley. xix. 17, 18 (Heb. and Sept.); New Test. Gramm. § 125. 
Note 5. a. That the apostle does not mean here to argue merely 
that Christians should at some future period become alive to God, is 
clear from ver. 11; he means to inculcate the sentiment, that from 
and after their spiritual resurrection they are bound to be so. 

Τῆς ἀναστάσεως depends on ὁμοιώματι implied. We should naturally 
expect the article τῷ before τῆς ἀναστάσεως ; and usually it is inserted 
in such cases; but it is also often omitted ; see New Test. Gramm. 
§ 92. 1. ὁ. 

(6) Τοῦτο γινώσκοντες, knowing this, i. 6... we acknowledge, concede, 
or consider as established, thus much, viz., what is immediately men- 
tioned in the sequel. It is equivalent to γινώσκομεν γάρ. 

 σαλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος, our old man, a phrase of Jewish origin, no 
doubt. Thus in the Talmud it is said of proselytes, that “ they be- 
came as little children,” (Jemavoth. fol. 62. 1;) and they are also 
called a new creation NYIN M82. This serves to show, that 
when our Saviour spoke to Nicodemus of the necessity of being born 
again, and when Paul spake of-him who is in Christ as being a new 
creature. (καινὴ κτίσις), there is no probability that the language em- 
ployed by them was unusual or strange among the Jews. The 
παλομὸς ἄνθρωπος here seems plainly to mean the internal man, 7. 6.7 the 
sinful desires and propensities which belong to us in a natural or 
unrenewed state. The epithet σαλαιός (old) is given, as designating 


ROMANS VI. 6. 279 


something in opposition to the new spiritual man which is put on in 
Christ Jesus. 

Συνεσταυρώθη is crucified as he [Christ] was, literally, ts crucified 
with him. On the comparative meaning of συν in composition, see on 
δυνετάφημεν under verse 4. Meaning: ‘The sinful desires and pro- 
pensities of the natural man are mortified and subdued in the Chris- 
tian, so that they will no longer have a predominant influence over 
his conduct.’ Not improbably the apostle, in choosing the word 

_ συνεσταυρώθη here, might have an allusion in his mind to the painful 
and protracted struggle which every Christian must go through, in 
subduing his carnal desires. « Certainly, the word is very significant, 
when viewed in this light. 

Καταργηθῆ, might be deprived of efficiency, might be destroyed, 
ὦ. é., might be deprived of sinful: vigour, power, life; might be ren- 
dered inefficacious as to sin, or be disabled from causing sin any 
more. 

Td σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, (locus vexatus), is explained by Hammond, 
Scheettgen, Glass, Tholuck, and others, by referring it to the He- 
brew idiom; in which DOSY and #13 (substance and body) are often 
employed either in a kind of superfluous manner, or (which is the 
more usual fact) in order to add intensity to the expression. Ex- 
plained in this manner the whole runs thus: ‘ Our old man, ὃ, e., our 
earnal or natural man, is crucified as Christ was, in order that the 
substance or essence of our sinful passions might be destroyed.’ 

A more simple method still of interpreting τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 18 
that followed by many of the fathers, and not a few distinguished 
modern interpreters, viz.. Hammond, Pareus, Hombergk, Wolf, 
Heumann, Koppe, Flatt, Benecke, Reiche, &c. Theodoret says: 
τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμωρτίας, περιφραστικῶς, αὕτη ἡ ἁμαρτία, ΡΟΣ periphrastically 
used for sin itself. So Gicumenius. The reason why σῶμα is em- 
ployed seems to be, that the apostle wishes to carry through the 
metaphor that he had begun, by speaking of the crucifixion of our 
oldman. A body only can be literally crucified ; in a representation 
where the language is to be figuratively interpreted, congruity of 
representation requires that this image should be preserved. Sin is 
personified, and represented as a monster with a body. Comp. the 
same figure of speech again in Col. ii. 11. As to any particular 
points of resemblance between a body and sin, such as that a body is 
made up of many particular parts, and sin is in like manncr very 


280 ROMANS VI. 6. 


various, &e., the nature of the comparison and its design do not 
admit them; and they are but poor conceits at the best. 

Beza, Semler, Bohme, Bretschneider, Wahl, Tholuck, Riickert, 
and some others, retain the literal sense of σῶμα, and construe ἁμαρτίας 
as qualifying it = sinful body, 7. e., body practising sin, or causing 
sin, source of sin, ὅθ. Such was the sense which I formerly gave it. 
And although this seems to be a justifiable meaning, if we compare 
Rom. vi. 12. vill. 13. vil. 23—25; yet I now view the other meaning 
as given above to be the more simple and obvious. Reiche contends 
strongly, that Paul never teaches the doctrine that the body is the 
seat or cause of sin; which, he moreover avers, must be metaphysi- 
cally untrue. But I am not able to make any important distinction 
between σάρξ and σῶμα as used by him in respect to things of a moral 
nature; and that Paul every where uses σάρξ as characterizing 
curnal passions and desires, admits of no doubt. Moreover, how can 
we refuse to concede, that, ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτοῦ (sc. σώματος) in Rom. vi. 
12, σώματος τοῦ Javérov in Rom. vil. 24, and πράξεις τοῦ σώματος in Rom. 
vill. 13, afford evidence that σῶμα may be employed in the same way 
as σάρξ ὃ Nor can I see why it may not be true, that our bodies, 
by their appetites and passions, may be the cause or means of our 
sinning as well and as truly as that the external world may be so. 
Sin, in a strict sense, is doubtless an act of the spirit or soul only: 
but the exciting cause need not be spiritual; and the body is often 
the instrument of acting out sin. 

The sense of tutality, entirety, τὸ πᾶν, has also been given to σῶμα 
here; but very ineptly. Carpzov renders it slave; and he appeals 
to similar usage among the Greeks, 6. g., in Rey. xvii. 13. But 
there seems no good reason why the word here should bear such a 
sense. 

Τοῦ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, that we should no more be 
servants to sin. Tod... δουλεύειν, instead of wore δουλεύειν; for in this 
latter way the Greeks usually express themselves. There are, in- 
deed, examples of such a use of rod before the Infinitive, even in 
classic Greek authors: see Buttmann’s Gr. Gramm. ὃ 127. bd. Anm. 1. 
But the frequency of this usage in the New Testament and Sep- 
tuagint in the sense of that, in order that, which must be assigned 
to τοῦ in some of these cases, seems to have its basis in the use of 5 
before the Infinitive in Hebrew, where it may signify either design, 
object, or end, event, consequence. For a full exhibition of this sub- 
jcct, with abundance of examples of all the different shades of usage, 


ROMANS VI. 7. 281 


see New Test. Gramm. ὃ 138. 8. a. Winer’s Gramm. ὃ 45. 4.—Tj 
ἁμαοτίῳ is still personified here. ‘The meaning of the apostle is, that 
we should no longer obey our passions and appetites which lead us 
to sin. 

(7) This verse may be regarded as a kind of general maxim or 
truth, in regard to all such as die physically or naturally. The 
object of the writer is, to draw a comparison between the effects of 
natural death, and those of spiritual death; the first causes men to 
_cease from all actions, and of course from their transgressions; and 
by analogy we may conclude that the second, which is a death unto 
sin, will do as much. The maxim, in its physical sense, was proba- 
bly a proverbial one among the Jews. Thus in the Talmud, it is 
said; ‘ When a man dies, he is freed from the commands,” Tract. 
Nidda. Now what is said by the common proverb adduced by the 
apostle, in a physical respect (and correctly said in the sense in- 
tended to be conveyed), the apostle means to intimate will apply, in 
a spiritual respect, to one who is spiritually dead as to sin, ze., he 
must become free from its influence. His great object is to illustrate 
and enforce this point. The γάρ with which the proverb is intro- 
duced, is γάρ illustrantis vel confirmantis. 

Bretschneider (Lex. é:xa/ow) has proposed a singular exegesis: 
‘* Qui mortuus est, absolutus habendus est a poend mortis, nimirum 
quum poenam peccati (7. e., descensum in Haden) jam tulerit.” How 
he who has gone down to Hades, and is there still, is freed a pana 
mortis, 1 do not perceive; nor is this exegesis applicable to the case 
in hand, for the question here is not about freeing from the penalty 
of sin, but from its power; the apostle is now treating of sanctijica- 
tion, not of justification. On this last ground, moreover, the expo- 
sition of Alting, Wolf, Carpzoy, and others, which gives to ἀποθανών 
here the sense οἵ an expiatory death (by virtue of being like to Christ 
in his death, or else in accordance with the Jewish opinion that death 
is an expiation of all offences), and so makes δεδικαΐωται ἀπὸ τῆς ὥμαρ- 
σίας mean, ‘is acquitted from the penalty of sin, must be rejected ; 
although other reasons might be urged against it. 

We may understand δεδικαίωται, therefore, in the sense already 
intimated above, viz., freed, delivered from. Nothing is more com- 
mon in the writings of Paul than the use of δικαιόω in the sense of 
acquitting, freeing, viz., from the sentence or penalty of the law, &e. 
But here the idea seems to be more general, and is equivalent to that 


282 NOMANS VI. 7. 


conveyed by ἐλευδερέω, which is substituted in its room in verse 18 
below. Compare 1: Pet. iv. 1, ὁ παθὼν ἐν σαρκὶ, πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας. In 
Sirach xxvi. 29, we read : od δικαιωθήσεται κάπηλος ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας, a ped- 
lar will not be free from sin, meaning that in the course of his 
business he will almost of course be led to contract guilt. Reiche, 
however, retains the meaning of judicially acquitted or declared free, 
for δεδικαίωτα. But he himself opposes the notion, that Paul here 
declares the ὁ ἀποθανών to be acquitted of the penalty of sin; for it 
is not the penalty here which is the question, but the power of sin. 
I do not understand, therefore, how he can adapt this sense of the 
word to the passage. 

Thus explained, verse 6 asserts the fact, that in case the old man 
is crucified, Christians can no more be engaged in the service of sin. 
Verse 7 enforces this declaration by a simile drawn from natural or 
physical death; viz., as he who is physically dead ceases from all 
action, and therefore from sin, so he who is dead to sin (for this 
apodosis is implied) ceases from the practice of it. What is said 
literally of the one literal death, is said morally or spiritually of the 
ether death which is of a moral nature. It hardly needs to be added 
here, that when the apostle speaks of natural death as freeing us 
from sin, he means from sinning here, in our present state and condi- 
tion. What may be the condition of the soul in a future world, is 
not here an object either of inquiry or of assertion. 

Gléckler proposes a more simple interpretation and construction 
than the preceding. He reads thus: ὁ ἀποθανὼν [ τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ] δεδικαίω- 
rai xz. τ. A,; supplying ἁμαρτίῳ from verse 2, and from what is implied 
in συνεσταυρώθη and καταργηθῇ in verse 6. But he explains δεδιχαίωται 
of justification from sin; which is wholly inapposite here, as the 
question respects the power aud not the penalty of sin. But if 
(with Chrysostom] we understand δεδικαίωται here as equivalent to 
ἀπήλλακται (is freed), then the mode of exegesis in question may well 
be admitted. The reasoning then would stand thus: “ We know 
that our old man must be put to death, in order that the power 
of sin may be destroyed, so that we may no longer be in subjection 
to it; for he who dies in this manner, 7. ¢,, dies unto sin by crucifying 
the old man, will be freed of course from the power of sin.’ This 
is not mere tautology (as it has been called) but only appealing to 
the fact, that crucifying sin so as to become dead to it, must from 
the nature of the case free us from slavishly obeying it. In any 


ROMANS VI. 8. 283 


way of construing the passage, ἁμαρτία must here mean sin in its 
active sense, as personified and exercising power. It cannot mean 
penalty of sin; for that is not here the subject of discussion. 

(8) In order to understand the nicer shades of the apostle’s dis- 
course here, the reader must cast his eye back upon verse 5-—7, and 
re-survey the course of thought, which is this: ‘We are dead with 
Christ, and we shall live with him [in the sense explained above]; 
for if we are made like him in the first respect, then we must be in 
the second. That such must be the case, follows from the fact that 
our old man is crucified, and we. are thus freed from the power of sin 
and can no longer serve it.’ Vers. 5—7 are therefore merely an illus- 
tration or confirmation of ver. 4; and accordingly εἰ γάρ and ὁ γάρ, 
the usual signs of clauses added for such a purpose, here make their 
appearance. But ver. 8 commences with an εἰ δέ, the latter of which 
_ here developes one of the nicer shades of meaning. Δέ is not unfre- 
quently employed as a continuative of the discourse; and particularly 
where the theme before introduced is resumed, and something added 
by way of illustration or confirmation ; in which case we may call it 
δέ resumptionis. Here the apostle resumes the sentiment of ver. 4 
(Turretin and Tholuck say of ver. 5, overlooking the γάρ confirman- 
tis of ver. 5), for the sake of adding a new circumstance by way of 
establishing his position, viz., that as Christ died but once and thence- 
forth lives for ever a new life, so the believer dies once for all to sin 
when he truly dies to it; consequently he must ever after live a new 
life, and no more practise sin as he once did. 

Ei δὲ ἀποθάνοιεν x. τ. Ac; %. 6.) If We die unto sin, as he died for it; 
for so vers. 4, 5 seq. lead us of course to interpret this.—2uZjoouev 
αὐτῷ, we shall live with him, or rather, like him we also shall lve. 
See on σύν in composition, in the remarks on ver. 4. Origen, Chry- 
sostom, Theodoret, Grotius, Heumann, Semler, Flatt, and others, 
have contended that ovZjooue refers to future glory in another 
world; and Reiche contends strongly for this exegesis. But the lat- 
ter part of vers. 4, 5, 11, makes conclusively against it. The simple 
sentiment is as before, viz., that ‘as Christ died and rose again, so 
the Christian (in a moral sense) dies and rises again; as Christ lives 
a new life, so does he.’ If it be objected that this is repetition or 
tautology, the answer is, that the sentiment of the preceding verses is 
indeed resumed here, but it is for the purpose of adding a new circum- 
stance as evidence of what had been affirmed, viz., that Christ died 


284 ROMANS vi. 9, 10. 


once for all, and so the Christian must die once for all to sin, 7. ¢., he 
can no more resume the practice of it. 

(9) Εἰδότες ὅτι is employed here in the same way as τοῦτο γινώσκοντες 
in ver. 6, and for the same purpose, viz., as prefatory to the introduc- 
tion of matter that was confessedly obvious and true. This form of 
speech is equivalent to saying: ‘ What I have now asserted must be 
true, inasmuch as you know this or that to be true from which my 
position is a plain and necessary deduction.’ 

Οὐκέτι ἀποθνήοχει, dies no more, 1. €., will never more die. The whole 
force of the illustration hangs on these two words ; for in these con- 
sists the additional matter which the apostle introduces.—Odvarog 
... . χυριεύει, death has no more dominion over him; a repetition of 
the preceding thought in different language, in order to give it inten- 


sity. It is as much as to say, ‘ Christ will die no more, for death — 


has no longer any power over him.’ As to the sentiment here and 
in ver. 10, comp. Heb. ix. 25—28. x. 11—14. One is strongly 
tempted to believe, that the same hand traced all these passages, 
from the peculiar shade of sentiment which is found in them. They 
mutually illustrate and confirm each other. 

(10) “O yag.., . ἐφάπαξ, for in that he died on account of sin once 
for all, or only once. ‘The construction of é (neuter pronoun here) 
is rather unusual in the New Testament; comp. Gal. ii. 20 for an 
example of a somewhat similar nature. For its use in the classics, 
see Matth. Gramm. II. 894. Like the corresponding Latin quod 
thus placed, it means in respect to this, viz., in respect to that which 
is immediately subjoined; which here is ἀπέθανε. The sense é thus 
absolutely used is the same as καθ᾽ 6.—Tég tllustrantis vel confirmantis, 
the verse being designed to confirm the preceding affirmation. 

Τῇ ἁμαρτίῳ ἀπέθανεν, he died to sin. But “he who knew no sin,” 
could not die to sin in the sense that sinful men do. The use of 
the Dative, in order to signify on account of, for the sake of, is not 
strange; Eurip. Androm. v. 334, τέθνηκα τῇ σῇ ϑυγατρὶ I die for the 
sake of your daughter. The Dativus cause vel occasionis also is 
not unfrequent, 6. g., Rom. xi. 20, 30 (see N. T. Gramm. ὃ 106. 5). 
This might be applied to the expression before us, in case it stood 
alone, in the following way, viz., Christ died on account of the sins of 
men, i. ¢., they were the occasion of his death, and he died in order 
to expiate them. But then we could not well interpret ζῇ τῷ Θεῷ 
which follows, in like manner; and therefore we cannot admit this 


C—O SO OO Os ΘΘΒΙΡΟΝ ae 


ROMANS VI. 11. 985 


solution. The true solution, after all, seems to be the general prin- 
ciple of the Dative, which is designed to express an object to which 
the action of the verb stands related, but not the object on which it 
directly terminates. ‘This last is marked by the Accusative case 
after transitive verbs. Here the dying expressed by ἀπέθανεν bears 
a relation to τῇ ἁμαρτίῳ. ‘This is designated by the Dative of this 
noun. But what the kind of relation is, the Dative does not of itself 
designate. This must be gathered from the context, or from the 
nature of thecase. And here the sense requires usto construe Christ’s 
“dying to sin, as meaning that he died in order to diminish its power 
or influence (Dat. incommodi as the grammarians express themselves 
in such a case).— Εφώπαξ, lit. for once; but the meaning is, as we say 
in English, once for all; comp. Heb. ix. 12. x. 10. 

Ὅ δὲ ζῇ, ζῇ τῷ Θεῷ, but in respect to his livina, he lives to God. 
As this clause is an antithesis of the former, so the Dative here is an 
antithesis of the one there employed; for here it is a species of the 
Dativus commodi (as grammarians call it), the meaning being evi- 
dently that ‘Christ lives to the honour and glory of God.’ This in- 
deed he always did; but not in that high and peculiar sense which 
is meant in reference to his state of exaltation. For such a sense 
of the Dative, and in a like case, comp. Rom. xiv. 6—8. See also 
2 Cor. v. 13. Matt. iii. 16. Luke i. 55. xix. 21. The case in Luke 
xx. 38, πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν, resembles the present one in form, but 
not in sense, Inasmuch as αὐτῷ (sc. Θεῷ) appears to mean by him. 
The ὃ (neuter pronoun) is construed here as in the first clause of the 
verse. | 

Chrysostom and Theophylact paraphrase τῷ Θεῷ by ἐν τῇ δυνάμει 
τοῦ Θεοῦ; which spoils the sense in the present connection. Cécu- 
menius says: “ He lives by his divine nature ;” which is equally in- 
apposite. The Dativus commodi is, therefore, the preferable prin- 
ciple. So Demosthenes: οὐκ αἰσχύνονται Φιλίππῳ ζῶντες, they are not 
ashamed, who live for the advantage of Philip. Quinctil. (1X. 2), 
Mater . . . que mihi vixit. 

(11) Now follows the comparison of the members with the head. 
Οὕτω καὶ. ... Θεῷ, in like manner you also must count yourselves 
dead to sin, but alive to God. For the sense of νεκροὺς τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, see 
on verse 2 above.—Zavrag τῷ Θεῷ, has here a meaning like to that 
in the preceding verse. Comp. Eph. ii. 5. Col. iii. 1. Eph. i. 20, 

The principal difficulties in respect to verses 1—11, are (1) That 
the comparison in verses 10, 11, between Christ and believers, will 


286 ROMANS vi. 12. 


not hold in the same sense. But on this I have already remarked 
under verse 4. (2) That Christ lived to God, in the sense here sup- 
posed to be asserted, before his resurrection as well as after it. 
‘ How then,’ it is asked, ‘ can the apostle be supposed to assert what 
would imply that it was only ajter his resurrection that he lived to 
God? The answer to this is. virtually, exhibited in the context. 
The apostle has said that Christ died to. sin, once for all; death has 
no more dominion over him. Now as his living to God is placed in 
antithesis to this, the necessary implication is, that he lives to him 
in such a way as to have no more concern with suffering and sorrow 
on account of sin, he lives to him ina state that is new, and the 
happiness of which is not interrupted by sin. In-like manner be- 
lievers are to become dead to sin, 7. ¢., to be unaffected by its solici- 
tations, and to be alive to God, 7. e. devoted in heart and life to the 
honour and glory of God, or to live in a state in which God (and 
not sin) shall be the chief object ofall their regard. All this is to 
be attained ἐν X. ᾿Ιησοῦ, through Jesus Christ, for this“is the only 
name given under heaven among men, whereby we can attain to 
such a happy condition. Or the sense may be, and from the well 
known idiom of Paul probably is: ‘you, being in Christ Jesus 
must count yourselves as living to God, &c’—T@ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν is con- 
sidered by Knapp, Griesbach, and Koppe, as being spurious. It 
matters nothing to the sense of the passage in general, whether it 
be received or rejected. | 
(12) οὖν, therefore, i. e., all this being true which I have said, it 
follows that sin ought not to reign, &c.—BaoiArvérw, reign, predomi- 
nate, have rule; see on verse 17.—T@ ϑνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματι, in your mor- 
tal body. The word ϑνητῷ has given occasion here to a variety of 
exegeses. The reason why the apostle calls the body ϑνητόν, mortal, 
exposed to death, seems to be, that he may present in an impressive 
manner the sin and folly of permitting the lusts and passions of a 
frail, perishable body, to have dominion over the soul. The ground 
why he speaks of the body as the seat of reigning sin, is that its 
passions and lusts have great influence in leading men to sin. It 
is evident that σῶμα ϑνητόν here is equivalent to ἑαυτούς in verse 18, 
and to ὑμῶν in verses 14,16; excepting that the repyesentation is, as 
has been suggested, rendered more impressive by this designation. 
Σῶμα is often employed in Greek, as a designation of the whole per- 
SON, 6. 5.) γυναικῶν καὶ παίδων σώματα, Jos. Antiq. XI. 3.10; so κατὰ 
σῶμα, man by man; and so the Latin corpus. But in the passage 


ROMANS vi. 13. 287 


before us I cannot doubt that the apostle means to designate the 
body as the seat of carnal passions and lusts. Comp. with “the senti- Ὁ 
ment here, Rom. vii. 5, 23, 24. viii. 3, 6, 7. See also the remarks 
ON τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, verse 6 ria 

Eig τὸ ὑπακούειν. ... αὐτοῦ, t. 6.57 let sin not have such predominance 
as to yield obedience to its dictates. There seems to be a tacit 
acknowledgment in the form of this expression, that sinful appetites 
are not extinguished in the believer; he must keep them in subjec- 
tion, but he does not wholly extinguish them. Fact accords with 
this. The enemy is taken captive, but not absolutely slain. 

The text varies in the latter part of this verse; the Receptus 
reading αὐτῷ ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμῆχις αὐτοῦ; which is wholly omitted in Clar., 
Germ., Ambros., Faustin.; rejected by Griesbach, Koppe, and Tho- 
luck: and suspected by Vater and Flatt. Tai ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτοῦ is 
supported by many MSS., versions, and fathers, and received by 
Bengel, Knapp, Lachmann, and others. Αὐτῇ simply, in the place 
of this, is supported by several MSS., D., E., F., G., Clar., and some 
of the fathers, and admitted by Mili. There are some other varieties 
of reading; 6. 9.) αὐτῷ, αὐτοῦ, αὐτήν, ἐν αὐτῇ, and αὐτῆς. Reiche thinks 
the whole clause was originally omitted, and that the varieties have 
arisen from efforts to supply a seeming deficiency by conjecture. It 
is a mere question of lower criticism. The sense is not materially 
varied by any of the readings. : 

(13) Παριστάνετε, proffer, give us, devote, afford. Μέλη means liter- 
ally, the members of the body ; which, however, here designate the 
whole man. This verse, then, is only a virtual repetition of the 
preceding one, in different language and for the sake of intensity.— 
"Ora here, as Reiche thinks, should be rendered (as usual) armour; 
because sin is represented as a king, and compelling us to his service. 
_ But idea of contest is not the predominating one here; and therefore 
ὅπλα May more appropriately be rendered instruments. The article 
is omitted before it, although in apposition with τὰ μέλη; see N. T. 
Gramm. ὃ 89. 6. Or it may be construed as following «iva: under- 
stood.—Tj ἁμαρτίῳ connects with μὴ παριστάνετε give not up to sin, 
a. 6.7 to sinful lust or desire, or to the service of sin, your members 
as instruments of iniquity, ὃ. 6.5 ἃ5 instruments of doing that which is 
sinful. 

TS Θεῷ being arranged immediately after παραστήσατε here, shows 
that τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ in the clause above is to be construed in like manner. 
—'Ds ἐκ νεχρῶν ζῶντας, as alive from the dead, t. e., as raised from the 


288 | ROMANS VI. 14. 


dead ; comp. Eph. ii. 1, 5. The ground of this figurative language 
is easily discovered in verses 3—11. That moral life and death are 
here meant, the reader scarcely needs to be reminded. 

Καὶ τὰ μέλη [παραστήσωτε] oes 3) Τῷ Θεῷ, [ give up | to God your 
members as instruments of righteousness; viz. as instruments ot 
doing that which is lawful and right. Τῷ Θεῷ is construed here by 
some as a Dativus commodi, in the following manner, viz., for God, 
2. 6.7. for the glory and honour of God. Tholuck prefers this con- 
struction. But analogy with the preceding clause seems plainly to 
require a different one, viz., such as I have given in the translation 
above. 

(14) ᾿Αμαρτία yag .. . . κυριεύσει, for sin shall not have dominion 
over us. The γὰρ here makes no little difficulty ; yet commentators 
in general have passed it by, without even noticing it. The most 
simple method of accounting for it is, that the apostle assigns that 
which is said in ver. 14, as a reasonable and proper ground of the 
commands given in verses 12, 13. If it be true that Christians are 
under grace, and that therefore they will be enabled to subdue sin, 
then is this a good reason why they are exhorted and commanded to 
do so. That the sense of the verse is prediction, promise (and not 
simply command or obligation), I must believe, with the great body 
of commentators, ¢. g., Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret, 
Melancthon, Erasmus, Calvin, Tholuck, Riickert, Reiche, ὥς. It 
was as true under the law as it is under grace, that men were obli- 
gated not to sin; and therefore an expression of mere obligation here 
seems to be fairly out of question. So far as the Fut. tense is itself 
concerned it is susceptible of such an interpretation; for the Fut. 
may predict, or express obligation; but it never can express mere 
physical possibility. Prediction is here the only consistent sense 
for it. 

Οὐ γάρ tore... , χάριν, for ye are not under law but under grace ; 
an expression much contested, and not unfrequently misunderstood. 
The simple meaning seems to me plainly to be: ‘ Ye are not under a 
legal dispensation, but a gracious one.’ Thisis a general proposition 


and one which the reader will hardly be able to understand, without - 


reading the remainder of this chapter and also chapters vii. viii. 
By so doing he will see, that the apostle means to assert the incom- 
petency of the law to furnish the requisite means for the sanctification 
of the sinner in his present condition. See in particular vii. 1—5, 
9—11. viii. 3,4. The confidence of Paul that sin would not have 


- 


ROMANS vr 14. 289 


dominion over Christians, was wholly reposed in the grace proffered 
by the gospel. He well knew that no strictness of precept, no 
authority of law, no sanctions of it however awful, would effectually 
deter men from sin. He has shown in chap. vil., that the law, in- 
stead of doing this, is even the occasion of the sinner’s being plunged 
into deeper guilt and condemnation than he would otherwise be. 
How then can it deliver either from the power and penalty of sin? 
It can do neither. The latter of these he has abundantly shown, in 
chaps. i.—iv. The former is what he now designs to assert, and what 
he goes on to illustrate and confirm. 

To say, with some commentators, that ὑπὸ νόμον refers only to the 
ceremonial law, would be to give the passage a sense frigid and in- 
ept. Where, in all the sequel down to the end of chap. viii. is there 
any thing which reminds us that the discussion here has relation 
_ merely to the ceremoniallaw? Does not chap. vii. 5—25 most fully 
contradict such a view of the subject? The law there discussed is 
not only “holy and just and good,” but it is the internal moral law, 
the νόμος τοῦ νοός (verse 23), 10 18 ἃ νόμος πνευματικός (verse 14). 

‘But how can it be true, that Christians are not under the law? 
The Saviour did not come to abolish the moral law; nay, he came 
that it might be fulfilled (Matt. v. 17, 18); how then can it be said 
that we are not under the moral law ?’ 

My answer is, that this is not designed to be said. Every expres- 
sion of such a nature as the one under examination, is of course to be 
understood according to the circumstances and intention of the writer. 
Paul had to do with Jewish legalists. And what was their doctrine ἢ 
It was, that salvation was attainable by legal obedience, not in the- 
ory only, but in an actual and practical way, 7. 6.) asa matter of fact. 
It was, moreover, that the law, by its precepts, its restraints, and its 
penalties, was an adequate and effectual means of sanctification. The 
first part of this scheme the apostle has overthrown in chaps. 1.—Iv. ; 
the last part he is now employed in overthrowing.— How he does this 
the reader may see, by reperusing the illustration of the general 
course of thought prefixed to the present chapter. 

Now that Christians are not under the law, either as an actual, 
effectual, adequate means of justification or sanctification, is true. 
If they are so, their case is utterly hopeless; for ruin must inevitably 
ensue. That they are not so, the apostle asserts in the verse under 
consideration. And from the sequel of his remarks (vi. 15+viii. 39), 
it is plain that this is all which he means. What can be plainer, than 

T 


290 ROMANS Vi. 15. 


that the moral law as precept, is altogether approved and recognized 
by him? See chap. vii. 12—14. Nay, so far is the apostle from 
pleading for abolition or repeal of moral precept, that he’ asserts 
directly (viii. 3, 4), that the gospel is designed to secure obedience 
_ to these precepts ; which the law itself was unable to do. 

It is then from the law viewed in this light, and this only, viz., as 
inadequate to effect the sanctification and secure the obedience of 
sinners, that the apostle here declares us to be free. Who can ob- 
ject to this? Or if any one should object, how is he to answer the 
arguments which the apostle has adduced in the sequel, in order to 
confirm his declaration ? 

Let no one, then, abuse this declaration, by imagining that it in 
any measure affords ground to believe, that Christians are freed from 
obligation to obey the precepts of the moral law. What is the 
divine law but a transcript of the divine will? And are not Chris- 
tians to be conformed to this? [5 not all the law summed up in 
these two declarations: “Thou shalt love the Lord with all thine 
heart ; and thy neighbour as thyself!” And are Christians absolved 
from loving God and theirneighbour? If not, then this part of the 
subject stands unembarrassed by any thing which the apostle has . 
said in our text or context. Indeed, when rightly viewed, there is 
no ground at all for embarrassment. 

I will only suggest in addition, that ὑπὸ χάριν implies that Chris- 
tians are placed in a condition or under a dispensation of which grace 
is the prominent feature ; grace to sanctify as well as renew the 
heart; grace to purify the evil affections; grace to forgive offences 
though often repeated, and thus to save from despair, and to excite 
to new efforts of obedience. Viewed in this light, there is abundant 
reason for asserting, that Christians, under a system of grace, will 
much more effectually throw off the dominion of sin, than they 
would do if under a mere law dispensation. 

(15) Ti ody... χάριν; What then? Shall we sin, because we 
are not under the law but under grace? i. e., What shall we say to 
this? viz., to what he had been declaring. Shall we conclude that 
one may sin, &c.? The first impression made by the declaration of 
the apostle, we might easily suppose, would lead the legalists to such 
a conclusion. ‘Is not the law, he would ask, ‘holy? Does it not 
forbid all sin? And does not grace forgive sin? How then can grace 
restrain sin?’ ‘That is, why may we not sin, if we are under grace 
merely and not under the law? But this question the apostle fol- 


ROMANS VI. 10. 291 


lows with a μὴ γένοιτο; and he then goes on to illustrate and confirm 
the important truth which he had uttered in verse 14. Comp. 
verse 1. | 

(16) οὐκ οἴδατε; Know ye not? i. 6.51 take itfor granted that ye 
know and believe. The reader will not fail to mark how often the 
apostle introduces this and the like expressions, as a preface to matter - 
which he knows is well understood, and to which he expects assent 
will be given by those whom he addresses; see τοῦτο γινώσκοντες verse 
6, and εἰδότες verse 9. 

"Ori i... ὑπακούετε, that to whomsoever ye give up yourselves as 
servants bound to obey, ye are the servants of him whom ye obey. 
Δούλους εἰς ὑπακοήν means servants unto obedience, t. ¢., servants bound 
to obey, devoted to obedience; «is before the Accusative denotes 
purpose, object, intention, obligation. Δοῦλοί ἐστε, 7. 6.) when you 
have once given up yourselves to any one as δούλους εἰς ὑπακοήν, you 
are no longer your own masters or at your own disposal; you have 
put yourselves within the power and at the disposal of another mas- 
ter. If the reader will call to mind the extent of a master’s power 
over his slave or servant in the days of Paul, he will perceive the 
unusual strength of the expressions here. 

"Hros ἁμαρτίας. . . . δικαιοσύνην, whether of sin unto death, or of 
obedience unto justification ; ἃ. 6.7 ye are servants when once ye have 
given yourselves up either to sin or to righteousness. If ye give up 
yourselves as servants of sin, then you must expect the consequence 
to be death: for “the wages of sin is death,” ver. 23. Once devoted 
to sin, and continuing to be so, you cannot avoid the end of it, which 
is death. But if you are the servants of that obedience which is 
unto justification, t. e., which is connected with justification, which 
ends in it, then you may expect eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον, ver. 22). 
The argument intended to be urged by these representations is, that 
when the Christian has once given himself up as the servant of grace 
he will of course, if sincere, yield obedience to its dictates; and these 
are such as will lead εἰς δικαιοσύνην, to justification.. That such is the 
meaning of the last phrase here, seems to me quite clear from its 
being the antithesis of εἰς Sdvaro. Why the construction of these 
passages should have been a matter of so much dissension and doubt 
among commentators as it has been, I do not see. When I compare 
the very explicit epexegesis of the whole in vers. 21, 22, where ζωὴν 
αἰώνιον is substituted for δικαιοσύνην in ver. 16, all seems to be plain and 
easy. Yet if thereader will consult even the commentaries of Tholuck 


292 ROMANS YI. 17. 


and Flatt, he will find himself unable (at least I have been so), to 
make out an explicit opinion from either. There is, indeed, a little 
doubt about the genuineness of the reading εἰς ϑάνατον, inasmuch as 
Codd. D., E., the Syriac version, and two or three Codd. minuse. 
omit it. Yet, on the whole, no substantial doubt remains that we 
should admit it. Then what is there so strange and difficult in the 
contrast here? Paul says we must be the servants of him to whom 
we devote ourselves, we must go where and when he bids; and this 
holds true, he adds, whether we apply it to our being the servants of 
sin, which will lead us to death, 7. e., condemnation, or to our being 
the servants of that obedience which is connected with or leads to 
justification, ¢. 6.7 pardon, acquittal from the penalty of the law. How 
can δικαιοσύνην here mean holiness, uprightness, when ὑπακοὴ itself ne- 
_cessarily implies this very idea? What is an obedience which leads 
to righteousness? Or how does it differ from righteousness itself, 
inasmuch as it is the very act of obedience which constitutes righte- 
ousness in the sense now contemplated? Then, moreover, the con- 
trast here with θάνατον does not seem to leave any room for doubt, 
what the meaning must be. ‘The sentiment is ‘Fearful as the con- 
sequences of sin are, when you are its servants you must follow its 
dictates. But on the other hand, the obedience which you yield to 
grace, is a joyful, glorious service, ending in eternal life. How 
Reiche can maintain that nothing more than physical death with its 
terrors is meant, when it is placed in opposition to δικαιοσύνην here 
and to ζωὴν αἰώνιον in ver. 22, lam unable to see. But having once 
taken this ground in regard to v. 12, he seems to feel the inconsis- 
tency of retreating here. Θάνατον means condemnation or sentence 
of death; and δικαιοσύνην, acquittal, justification, sentence of acquittal. 
How Reiche could render the latter holiness, when he compared 
verse 22, [ do not perceive. 

(17) Χάρις 62... . διδαχῆς, but thanks be unto God that ye were 
the servants of sin, but have become obedient from the heart to that 
model of doctrine in which ye have been instructed. Such is the literal 
translation. But the nature of the case is sufficient to show, that 
the apostle’s thanks to God are not designed to have a special bear- 
ing on ἦτε δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας. In view of the whole case, viz., that 
they once were the servants of sin, but now are devoted to Christian 
obedience, Paul thanks God, as well he might, for ‘there is joy in 
heaven over one sinner that repenteth” But to say that he thanks 
God with special’reference to the fact that they were sinners, and 


ROMANS Vi. 17. 293 


because they were so, would be saying what contradicts not only the 
whole strain of Paul’s epistles, but all the Bible. Besides, the mean- 
ing of ἦτε here plainly is, that ‘ ye once were but no longer are,’ i. 6.» 
that having once been so they have ceased to be so. Thus in Latin: 
Fuit Dium ; fuimus Troes. | 

It has been proposed here to render ὅτι although ; but, first, there _ 
is no adequate authority for such a translation; secondly, the present 
construction of the sentence requires ὅτι as rationem reddens in 
respect to χάρις τῷ Θεῷ; and the 62 (but) after ὑπηκούσατε indicates 
that ὅτι in the preceding clause retains its usual sense. The true 
solution of the difficulty consists in taking the whole phrase together}. 
for then a meaning is conveyed, which might well excite the mind 
_ of the apostle to gratitude. 

“Ὑπηκούσατε δὲ ἐκ καρδίας, but ye have heartily or sincerely become 
obedient. ‘The apostle means to express his cheering confidence in 
the reality of their devotedness to the cause of Christ, which they 
professed to love; and this seems to me to be all that he here means 
to express. Tholuck says, however, that ὑπηκούσατε joined with ἐκ 
καρδίας, “18 designed to render conspicuous the idea of the free will 
with which the sinner first came to Jesus and received pardon,’ 
Was it true, then, that Jesus first sought the sinner, or the sinner 
him? Do we “love him because he first loved us;” or is it the 
reverse? That the sinner was “ willing,” I doubt not; but that he 
was “ made willing in the day of God’s power,” seems to be equally 
plain. Does not “God work in us both to will and to do ?” . 

Εἰς ὃν. ... διδαχῆς. The construction here has given much 
trouble to critics. Itneed not have done so; for iraxodw may govern 
the Accusative as well as the Dative; see examples of the Accusative 
in Prov. xxix. 12. Deut. xxi. 18. It may also govern the Genitive; 
6. g- Deut. xxi. 20. xxvi. 14, 17, et al. seepe. The Dative after it, 
however, is mosccommon. Wemay then construe thus: ὑπηκούσατε 
σύπον διδαχῆρ' .. ως εἰς ὃν παραδόθητε. Eis with the Accusative very 
frequently follows πωραδήδωμι, although the simple Dative is the most 
usual. But here the Dative would not give the sense—into which 
ye have been initiated, or in respect to which ye have been instructed. 

A second way of solving the grammatical construction, is by 
attraction. ‘The noun, as all grammarians of course know, is almost 
as often attracted to the case of the pronoun, as the pronoun is to 
that of the noun. ‘The former we may suppose to be the case here, 

so that τύπον is written for τύπῳ, which latter would be the more 


204 ROMANS VI. 18: 


usual construction after ὑπακούω. Why Tholuck, Flatt, and others, 
should prefer the forced construction here, ὑπηκούσατε εἰς rimov ὃς παρε- 
δόθη ὑμῖν, I do not see. They do not seem to have adverted to the 
fact, that ὑπακούω may take the simple Accusative after it, as shown 
above. Even Reiche has overlooked this. 

That ὑπηκούσατε, in the second clause here, corresponds to ἦτε δοῦλοι 
in the first, is plain. The apostle might have used ἐδουλώθῃτε in the 
room of it; but ὑπηκούσατε corresponds better to the phraseology of 
the preceding verse. 

Τύσον διδαχῆς, model of doctrine; τύπος, model, form, example, &e. 
Comp. Rom. ii. 20, μόρφωσις τῆς γνώσεως; 2 Tim. 1. 13, ὑποτύπωσις 
ὑγιαινόντων λόγων. In the classics also such expressions occur; 6. 4., 
Jambl. Vita Pythag.c. 16. He had τῆς παιδεύσεως ὁ τύπος τοιοῦτος, 
such a model of instruction, and looking to this, &c.; Ib. ο. 23, 
‘‘For the sake of rendering more conspicuous τὸν τύπον τῆς διδασκαλίας. 
Bretschneider (Lex. τύπος) gives the meaning of τύπον διδαχῆς here, by 
doctrina animis vestris insculpta, meaning that τύπον should be ren- 
dered impression ; a sense which might receive some countenance 
from gugurov λόγον in James i. 21, but which, however, cannot be 
maintained as Pauline, after weighing the examples in Rom. ii. 20. 
2 Tim. i. 13.— Ex καρδίας means willingly, heartily, sincerely. ΥἹαρε- 
δόθητε refers to the fact that they had been taught of God, or taught 
of the apostles. I see no good reason, however, why the idea may 
not include both, and so generally designate all the right teaching 
which they had received. 

(18) ᾿Ελευθερωθέντες ... ἁμαρτίας, being freed from sin, t. e. from 
a state of bondage to sin, from being the servants of sin. This was 
effected, when they “passed from death unto life,” from “the 
bondage of Satan to enjoy the liberty of the children of God.” Then 
it was also, that they became the Lord’s ; they became so éx xagdias. 
Being “ bought with a price,” they held themselves, in their new 
state, to be under obligation to “ glorify God with their bodies and 
with their spirits which are his ;’ which is expressed by ἐδουλώθητε τῇ 
dixasoown.—The δέ in this verse is continuative, t. e., it means then or 
morevver. 

It is easy to see, that verses 17, 18, do not advance the argument 
of the apostle. They are not designed for this purpose; but only for 
the sake of making an impression on the minds of his readers. He 
intends to show them, that they have a personal interest in what he 
-says, and indeed that they are themselves examples of what he is 


ROMANS VI. 19. 295 


declaring. To the like purpose are the declarations in verses 19, 20. 
Verse 18 may indeed be viewed as an appeal ad hominem: ‘Ye, 
brethren, are no more the servants of sin; how then can you any 
longer continue to obey its dictates? Ye hag become the servants 
of righteousness; and of course you must obey its dictates, 2. 6.) live 
a life of holiness.’ 

(19) ᾿Ανθρώπινον λέγω seems to be equivalent to κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον λέγω, 
ill. 5; ὁ. ¢., I speak as men are accustomed to speak, viz., I use such 
language as they usually employ in regard to the affairs of common 
- life. So the classic Greek authors say in the like sense, ἀνθρωπίνος 
λέγω Or ἀνθρωπείως λέγω; see Aristoph. Rane, 1090, Vespa, 1174. 
Strato in Athenzus, Deipnos. Tom. III. lib. IX. 29. So also the 
Latins; as Petronius, Satyr. c. 50, Sepius poetice quam humane lo- 
cutus es. Cicero, de Divinat. 11. 64, hominum more dicere. The 
apostle means to say, that in speaking of the subject under consider- 
ation, he uses language borrowed from common life, which may be 
easily understood. The reason of this he now proceeds to assign. 
I consider the declaration in ἀνθρωπίνον λέγω as referring to what pre- 
cedes and also to what follows; and consequently only as a paren- 
thesis thrown in between the members of a sentence ; for in reality 
verses 18, 19 make but one sentence, as -the causal particle γάρ 
shows. 

Διὰ viv... . ὑμῶν, because of the weakness of your flesh, i. 6... be-. 
cause of the feebleness or imperfection of your spiritual knowledge, 
or of your ability to comprehend me, which is occasioned by the 
flesh, 7. ¢., the carnal part, Darang ἐν so great an influence. Or τῆς 
σαρκὸς ὑμῶν may, like the Hebrew 182, be used by way of periphrasis, 
merely to indicate your own selves. Or dodévesay may be used here 
(as ἀσθενῶν is in Romans v. 6) for moral weakness. So Beza and 
others; but this is an improbable sense; for the apostle does not. 
here speak in the tone of chiding. The expression in 1 Cor. iii. 1, 
seems to afford aid sufficient to make the matter plain: “I could 
not speak to you as σνευματικοῖς but as σαρκικοῖς 5” which latter word 
is immediately explained by the epexegetical clause, ὡς νηπίοις ἐν Χρι- 
ori. So then the ἀσθένεια τῆς σαρκός may be regarded as indicating (if 
I may thus speak) the feeble or infantile state of spiritual knowledge 
among the Romans; and to adapt himself to this, the apostle had 
made use of the familiar phraseology which the context exhibits. 
In giving this construction to ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν, we must regard 
τῆς σαρκός as Gen. cause vel auctoris; so that the sense is: ‘The 


200 ROMANS VI. 90, 


weakness which the flesh or carnal part occasions, viz., the inability 
to comprehend language of a higher and more difficult nature, which 
had been occasioned by their fieshly passions and appetites. 

Ὥσπερ γάρ. . . . ἀνομίαν, for as ye have given up your members to 
be the servants of impurity and iniquity, for the sake of iniquity. 
The γάρ here may seem, at first view, to be rather difficult of ex- 
planation. But the simple ground of it is to be found in the im- 
plied sentiment: ‘ Ye must now be the servants of righteousness, for 
as, &e. That is, ‘Ye must be servants of righteousness, if you 
would act consistently; for when you served sin you engaged ac- 
tively in its service, and so it must be when you serve righteous- 
ness.’ 

Τὰ μέλη iwavis equivalent to σῶμα ϑνητόν in verse 12. Itis resum- 
ing the diction of verse 13. The ground of the usage is, that our 
members are the instruments actually employed either in the service 
of sin or righteousness. They are our instrumental agents.—Acdaa 
is here an adjective, δοῦλος -ἡ -ον, Comp. Wisd. xv. 1.-- τῇ ἀκαθαρσία καὶ 
τῇ ἀνομίᾳ, Dat. commodi, at least a species of it.— Eig τὴν ἀνομίαν for 
the purpose of iniquity, 2. 6.) of doing iniquity, of committing sin. 

Οὕτω viv... . ἁγιασμόν, so now give up your members to be the 
servants of righteousness, for the sake of holiness.—Eis ἁγιασμόν 
stands here without the article, although we have in the antithesis 
εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν. But this is one of those cases in which the writer 
may insert or omit the article, without any important difference of 
‘meaning in his discourse. Abstract and monadic nouns allow this 
liberty ; N. Test. Gramm. § 89. 2. 

(20) “Ore γὰρ . . . . δικαιοσύνῃ, for when ye were the servants of 
sin ye were free in respect to righteousness. ‘he expression in itself 
is not difficult, excepting perhaps the last clause of it; but the con- 
nection and object of the verse are somewhat difficult. Tholuck 
says that γάρ points to verse 22, in respect to the reward of Chris- 
tians; but this is a liberty with γάρ which it would be no easy task 
to justify. I must connect it with what precedes, in this case, not 
with what follows. What says the apostle? ‘As you once served 
sin, so now you must serve holiness. [Your present relation admits 
of no other conclusion]; for when you served sin, you deemed your- 
selves free from all obligation to righteousness, [so now, serving 
holiness, count yourselves free from all obligation to sin].’ I cannot 
see in what other way ὅτε γὰρ x τ. A. is here connected. As yé2con- 
firmantis vel illustrantis, we must take the particle here ; and if so, 


ΝΣ... 


ROMANS VI. 21. 297 


then I cannot make out the object of the verse in any other way 
than as above. There is, indeed, an anacoluthon in this case; but 
how often Paul admits this into his epistles, the distinguishing 
reader of them needs not to be informed. 

Bretschneider (Lex. ἐλεύθερος) renders ἐλεύθεροι, destituti; and so 
many others have done; but this is a sense which it would be diffi- 
cult to vindicate, and whichis unnecessary. When the apostle says, 
that they, being the servants of sin, were ἐλεύθεροι τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ, he can- 

_not mean that in fact they were free from all obligation to holiness 
‘(for this can never be true of any moral being whatever); he must 
mean, then, that in their own estimation, or according to the tenor 
of their own reasonings, they were absolved from obligation to pur- 
sue holiness; or he means, that in fact they lived as those who are 

absolved from obligation to holiness. I understand him here to be 
making an appeal ad hominem, as in the preceding verse, and to say 
in effect: ‘Since you formerly, when in the service of sin, counted 
yourselves free from the dominion of holiness ; so now, as the ser- 
vants of righteousness, count yourselves free from all obligation to 
obey sin. The Dative here (τῇ d:xasootvy) belongs to that class of 
Datives whose office it is to designate relation to, respect to, a parti- 
cular thing, ἡ. ¢., the noun is put in the Dative, which limits to a 
particular thing a predicate which in its own nature is general. So 
here ἐλεύθεροι----ἃ general idea—but τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ limits it to this parti- 
cular thing. See New Test. Gramm. ὃ 106.1; and comp. 1 Cor. 
xiv. 20. Acts vii. 51. xx. 22. 1 Cor. vii. 34. Heb. v. 11. 

(21) Τίνα οὖν. . . . ἐπαισχύνεσθε; What fruit, moreover, had ye then, 
in respect to those things [of which] ye are now ashamed? ‘There are 
various ways of pointing and constructing this sentence. Some put 
the interrogation point after τότε, and make the answer to be: ‘Such 
fruit as ye are nowashamed of.’ So Koppe; with whom Flatt and 
Tholuck agree. I prefer the division of Knapp, who points as above. 
Od», “ orationt continuande inservit.” (Bretschn. Lex.). There seems 
to me plainly to be a ¢ransition in the discourse here to another 
topic, viz., from the topic of obligation of which the writer had been 
speaking, to that of consequence, 1. ¢., either penalty or reward. This 

_ makes the second point of comparison, between being under the law 

and under grace. The end or event of the two states is unspeakably 
different. The writer, however, assumes the position here, that 
while under the law men will continue to sin, and thus bring death 


298 ROMANS VI. 22. 


upon themselves. It is only in the sequel (chap. vii. 5—25), that he 
fully illustrates the reason or ground of this. 

Καρπὸν εἴχετε κ΄ τι A, must here mean; What reward had ye? 
What benefit did ye experience? Comp. Rom. i. 13. xv. 28. Heb. 
xii. 11, "Exe καρπόν has a different meaning from g:gew καρπέν. To 
make the construction full, ἐκείνων must be understood before ἐφ᾽ οἷς. 
Such an ellipsis is very frequent; see Bretschn. Lex. ὅς, 6. 8. ᾽Επαι- 
σχύνομαι usually governs the Accusative, but is here constructed 
with ἐσί after it. 

Td γὰρ τέλος ἐκείνων ϑάνατος, for the end of those things is death; viz., 
of such things as they formerly practised, but are now ashamed 
of. Τέλος retains here a sense which is very common, viz., the conse- 
quence, final event, fata ultima, exitus ret. Ydg confirmantis; as if 
the writer had said: ‘ What solid good could result from your former 
course of life, since the end of this course must be death?’ For the 
sense of ϑάνατος, see chap. v. 12. 

(22) Nuvi dF... . ἁγιασμόν, but now, being Freed from sin, and Nhe 
ing become ραν β to God, ye have your fruit in respect to holiness. 
The preceding context explains ἐλευθερωθέντες... .. Θεῷ. “Ἔχετε τὸν 
καρπόν must mean the same as in verse 21, viz., you have your benejit 
or reward.—Eig .... ἁγιασμόν, in respect to holiness or sanctifica- 
tion (Bretschn. Lex. εἰς, 4); not (with Flatt and others) unto holiness 
2. 6.7 the consequences are, that ye are holy. It is not the writer's 
shite here to represent the consequence of serving God as being the 
attainment of holiness ; for serving God implies that holiness already 
exists. It is the fruits, 7. e., the consequences of serving God, which 
Paul here brings into view; for nothing else would make out the 
antithesis to the preceding verse; a circumstance overlooked by many 
commentators. I understand the apostle as saying: ‘ You already 
enjoy important benefits, in respect to'a holy course of life ; and you 
hope for more important benefits still, viz., ζωὴν αἱώνιον.᾽ 

Τὸ d:.... αἰώνιον, and the end [isto possess] eternal life. The 
realer will observe, that the Acc. (ζωὴν αἰώνιον) renders it necessary 
here to supply some verb in order to complete the construction; and 
some verb which is different from that in verse 21 (eri), where Jéve- 
ros isin the Nom. The sentence may be filled out in two ways; 
Viz., (1) Td δὲ τέλος [ἔχειν or ἕξειν] ζωὴν αἰώνιον. (2) Td δὲ τέλος [ἕξει] 
ζωὴν αἰώνιο. ‘The sense is the same in both cases. In the latter case, 
ζωὴν αἰώνιον is put in apposition with τὸ τέλος, and is explanatory of it. 


ROMANS VII. 1. 299 


In the former case, the construction is thus : ‘The end or event will 
be, that you shall obtain everlasting happiness.’ One or the other 
of these constructions, the context and the form of the words compel 
us to adopt. 

The reader cannot help remarking here the antithesis between 
ζωὴν αἰώνιον and ϑάνατος. How can the latter be temporal only ? 
What comparison would this make, between the two members of 
the antithesis? | 

(23) Such consequences must follow from the established rules of 
the divine government, respecting the fruits of sin and of holiness. 

Τὰ yao .... ϑάνατος, for the reward (wages) of sin is death; 
comp. on Rom. v. 12.—Yrde conjirmantis ; for what is said in the 
sequel confirms vers. 21,22.—’ Οψώνια, properly the rations of soldiers, 
i. ¢., their wages, which at first were paid in grain, meat, fruit, &c., 
but afterwards in money. Observe that the apostle employs this 
term in order to designate something which was really the proper 
due of sin, viz., for the service of it; as the wages which a soldier 
earns by his hard military service, are properly his due. But on the 
other hand the reward of Christians is all of grace, not of debt; and 
so it is designated in the sequel by χάρισμα. 

"Evy Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, t. e., through the redemption or 
atonement of Christ, i. 283—26. v. 1, 8, 11, 17—19, 21. 


800 | ROMANS Vil. 1—4. 


CHAP. VIL. 1—4. 


THE variety of opinion respecting the first four verses in this chapter, is so great, and so many 
difficulties present themselves in the way of almost every exegesis which has hitherto been pro- 
posed, that one is strongly tempted to abandon the hope, that any thing can be offered which 
will be satisfactory to an enlightened and inquiring mind. After long and often-repeated study 
of these verses, however, I have come to the persuasion, that the difficulty with most commentators, 
lies principally in their insisting upon too minute comparison between the conjugal connection 
here mentioned, and the connection of Christians with the law. A minute and exact comparison 
cannot be made; for, (1) The apostle represents the husband as dying, and the wife as 
becoming free in consequence of his death. Then, (2) Christians are said to die to the law (not 
the law to them), and they are thus prepared to be affianced to Christ; 7. 6., the party who dies 
is, in this last case, represented as married to another; while, in respect to the literal conjugal 
union, it is of course only the party who lives that can be joined to another. This apparent dis- 
similitude between the two cases, has given great trouble to commentators; and in fact it appears 
inexplicable, unless we acquiesce in a mere general point of similitude as to the things compared, 
without insisting on minute and circumstantial resemblances. 

Let us inquire first of all: What is the object of the writer in presenting the comparison before 
us? The answer is, to illustrate and defend the sentiment avowed in chap. vi. 14; viz. “ For we 
are not under the law, but under grace.” Those Christians who were inclined to be legalists, and 
to look for justification or sanctification (the la‘ter is here the subject of the writer) by the law, 
and therefore to hold fast to the law as an adequate means of accomplishing this end, would 
easily take offence at such a declaration. ‘What! they would naturally say, ‘does the gospel 
then absolve us from our relation to the law? Shall we throw by the ancient Scriptures as οὗ 
no more use to us, because we now come under a new dispensation of grace ?” 

The apostle has prepared the way in chap. vi. 16—21, for the declaration which he is now 
about to make relative to this subject. He has there shown, as we have already seen, that a 
state of grace diminishes nothing of our obligation to refrain from sin; for by this very state are 
we made servants to righteousness ; and the practice of holiness is at the same time urged upon 
us, by the prospect of a glorious reward, while the neglect of it is followed by endless misery. He 
now advances another step, and declares that we are “ dead to the law,” ὦ, ¢., that the law is an 
efficient means of sanctification (which the legalist holds it to be), has been renounced by true 
Christians ; for the death of Christ “ who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one who 
believes,” in whom, moreover, we profess to trust as the ground of our sanctification as well as 
justification, has placed us in a new relation as to adequate means of being sanctified, and freed 
us from the vain and deceptive hopes of legalists, who were leaning upon the law as the ground 
of sanctification and justification. 

I bave already stated reasons for supposing that the apostle is here speaking in particular of 
the law as an adequate means of sanctification; see the introduction to chap. vi. I merely remark 
here, that the close of ver. 4 shows very explicitly, that the special object which the apostle now 
considers as attainable by becoming dead to the law and affianced to Christ, is ἵνα καρποφορήσωμεν 
τῷ Θεῷ. Sanctification then, not justification (as many commentators suppose), is here the parti- 
cular subject of the writer’s attention. 

Vers. 1—4 may rather be called an illustration of what the apostle had avowed in vi. 14. than 
an argument [0 establish the declaration there made. The simple basis of the whole comparison 
I understand thus: ‘Brethren, you are aware that death, in all cases, dissolves the relation which 
exists between an individual and a law by which he was personally bound. For example: the 
conjugal law ceases to be in force, by the death of one of the parties. So itis in the case of Chris- 
tians. They not only die to sin, ἡ. 6.) renounce it, when they are baptized into the death of Christ, 
vi, 2—11; but they also die to thelaw at the same time, é. ¢., they renounce all their hopes and 
expectations of being sanctified by the law, so that sin will no more have dominion over them. 
They do, by the very fact of becoming real Christians, profess to receive Christ as their “ wisdom, 
and justification, and sanctification (ἁγιασμός) and redemption, 1 Cor. i. 30. , 

Let the reader consider, for a moment, the true nature of the declaration just quoted. Christ 
is our wisdom, é. ¢., our teacher, be who communicates the spiritual knowledge and light which we 


ROMANS vir, 1— 4, 301 


need, “ the light of the world.” Christ is our justification (δικαιοσύνην ; t. @., the meritorious cause, 
ground or author of it; comp. Rom. iii, 21—28. Christ 15. our sanctijication; 7. e., the author, 
cause, or ground of our sanctification, by what he has done in our behalf in order to ensure it, 
Christ is our redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις) : ὃ. 6., he is (to sum up all in one word) the cause of our 
detiverance from the penalty and power of sin, and of our being brought to enjoy the glorious 
liberty of the children of God. The last word makes the climax of the whole sentence. 

“Christ then is as really and truly our sanctification, as he is our justification. Τί now, in 
despair of being justified by the law (for so we must be if we rightly view the subject), we go 
to Christ for justification, and receive him as our cnly Saviour, renouncing all merit of our 
own, and all hope of being saved by the law—If, I say, we feel and do all this, when we do 
renounce the law for ever as the ground of justification, and accept the gratuitous salvation which 
is proffered by Christ. Inthe same manner, when the sinner comes to an adequate and proper 
view of the strictness and purity of the divine law, and also to right views of the state of his own 
heart while in a natural condition, he will utterly abandon all hope of being sanctified by the law; 

‘for he will see, what Paul has so fully asserted in chap. vii. 5—11, ‘that the law brings him (through 
his own fault indeed, but not the less surely because of this), into a state of deeper guilt and con- 
demnation.’? How then can the law be an adequate means of his sanctification? It is impossi- 
ble; and the truly convicted sinner renounces all hope of this, and betakes himself to Christ and 
his salvation as the only ground of hope in this respect. 

Here is the great difficulty, and here the solution of the whole passage must comein. Consider, 
for a moment, the true nature of the apostle’s assertion, and no alarm need be felt as to the ten- 

- dency of his sentiments, For what is it which he affirms in chap. vi. 14? It is, that “sin shall 
not have dominion over Christians, because they are not under the law but under grace.” The 
dominion or power which sin is to have over Christians, is then the subject of his inquiry and of 
his assertions. So indeed the preceding context teaches; and so the subsequent context also. 
That we are not under the law, then, must of course mean, in this connection, that we are not 
under it as an efficacious or successful means of deliverance from the power of sin; for this it 
has never been, and cannot be, as chap. vii. 5—25 most fully shows. Christians are dead to the 
law, then, in this respect, viz., they renounce all hope of deliverance from the power of sin, through 
the law. It convinces, and condemns, and keeps up a continual struggle in the sinner’s breast by 
awakening his conscience; but does not deliver, vii. 14—25, comp. viii. 3, 4. Consequently the 
true.penitent, coming to feel its impotence as the means of delivering from the power of sin, re- 
nounces all hope of deliverance in this way, and gives himself up to Christ, as his sanctification, 
as well as his wisdom, justification, and redemption. 

Now what is there in all this, which infringes on the obligation of moral precept contained in 
the law? Surely nothing. “ The law is holy, and just, and good ;” it is all summed up in the 
requisition, ‘ to love God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves.’ Will any one as- 
sert that Paul contends against this, after all that he has said in chaps. vi.—viii., relative to the 
Christian’s obligation to renounce sin and live a holy life? Nothing can be farther from his in- 
tention. The only question that needs to be solved, in order to remove all difficulty is: In what 
sense does Paul say that we are dead to the law? This I have endeavoured to answer, by making 

.the apostle his own expositor. The sum of the answer is, that as Christians renounce the law 

as an effectual means of justification (chaps. i.—iii.), so they must renounce it as an effectual 
meéans of sanctification. Christ is our only hope in this respect, as well asin the other. The 
grace of the gospel is the only effectual means by which we can hope successfully to resist sin 
and persevere in holiness. x 

And is not this true? Justas true as that Christ is the ground of our justification ? I appeal, 
to chap. viii. 3, 4 for an exhibition of the sum of this sentiment; and to the whole of chaps. 
vi.—viii., and also to the experience and feelings of every truly enlightened and humble Chris. 
tian on earth,—in confirmation of the same sentiment. 

I acknowledge it is a truth often overlooked. Many a time have I read the epistle to the 
Romans, without obtaining scarcely a glimpse of it. When I ask the reason of this, I find it in 
neglect to look after the general object and course of thoughtin the writer. Special interpretation 
stood in the way of general views; the explanation of words hindered the discerning of the course 
of thought. And so I suppose it may be with many others. But now the whole matter appears 


902 ROMANS Vil. 1. 


to me so plain, that I can only wonder that I have ever been in the dark respecting it. Luther 
and other Reformers saw what was so long hidden from me; and of late, Knapp, Tholack, and 
many other commentators have explained the chapters in question in like manner as I now do, 
Reiche indeed has recently disclaimed and opposed this view; but I cannot think him to bein 
the right. _ . 

Having already given what I consider as the only defensible exposition of the similitude 
which the apostle employs in vers. 1—4, I merely advert to different expositions, ancient and 
modern. Augustine (Prop. 36): Triasint; anima tanquam mulier, passiones peccatorum tanquam 
vir, et lex tanquam ler viri. Beza: “The old men is the wife, sinful desire the huSband, sins 
the children.” Origen, Chrysostom, Calvin, and others: “Men are the wife, the law the former 
husband, Christ the new one.” This last explanation seems to accord substantially with ver. 4, 
in which Christians are represented as having become dead to their former husband, and affianced 
to anew one. In order to carry the figure regularly through, it would seem as if the law (the 
former husband) must be represented as dead, by which Christians would be at liberty to be 
joined to a new husband. But this the apostle does not say; probably because he thought the 
expression would give offence to the Jews. Yet he says what is tantamount to it; for if either 
of the parties in a conjugal union die, then each is dead to the law, and the law to them, 7. 6.» 
the conjugal law has no more application or relation to them, it is annulled as to them. It mat- 
ters not which party dies, so far as the law is concerned; for the law no longer controls him who 
dies. So in the case before us ; one of the parties being dead, the conjugal relation ceases. A 
new connection, therefore, may be formed. But this last conclusion can be made out only on the 
ground, that ‘dying to the law” is a figurative expression; which, indeed, no one will deny. If 
it is to be expounded by analogy with chap. vi. 1—11, we must construe it as meaning, ‘ the re- 
nunciation of all trust in the law as the efficient means of sanctifying the sinner.. When the 
awakened sinner comes to feel this sincerely and thoroughly, he is then prepared to be affianced 
to Christ, 7. e., to receive him as his sanctification as well as his justification. 


(1) Ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε; in sense the same as odx οἴδατε in vi. 16; which see. 
"H, num, an, merely a sign of interrogation here. Here, as in vi. 16, 
the writer means to say, that they well know, or that they will readily 
acknowledge, viz., that which he is about to state.—Tweoxouer . . . . 
λαλῶ, for I address those who are acquainted with the law, viz., the 
Mosaic law. The apostle may mean here, that he addresses the 
Jewish part of the Church at Rome, in a particular manner, in rela- 
tion to what he is about to say; or what he says may imply, that 
the whole church had some acquaintance with the Old Testament 
Scriptures. In regard to this latter fact it may be said, that as the 
Old Testament was every where and continually appealed to by the 
primitive teachers of Christianity, and was moreover extant in the 
Greek language which was very generally understood at Rome, so it 
is altogether probable that the Roman Christians in general had an 
acquaintance with at least the leading features of the Mosaic system. 
However, I should consider it to be most probable, that he is here 
particularly addressing the Hebrew Christians. The reader will 
notice that the article is here omitted before γινώσκουσι, where we 
should naturally expect it, and where it is usual to insert it. But it 
is not unfrequently omitted in these cases; N. Test. Gramm. ὃ 144. 


ROMANS VII. 2. 303 


2. Τάρ, “rationem reddens ;” for if they were acquainted with the 
law they could not be ignorant of what the apostle supposes them to 
know. 

"Ori ὁ νόμος. . . . ζῇ, that the law exercises control over a man as 
long as he lives. The apostle means the Mosaic law here; but what 
he says is equally true of other laws of a permanent nature.—Kugiebei, 
performs the office of κύριος, 1. 6.,) controls, is valid in respect to. 
Not improbably the choice of this word was dictated by the τῷ Κυρίῳ 
of the preceding verse. It is as much as to say, that so long as we 
‘are affianced to the law, the law is our κύριος, and not Christ.— Toi 
ἀνθρώπου, THE man, 2. 6.5 the man who lives under it, not any man in 
general, but only one who holds such a relation. Some interpreters 
here take ἀνθρώπου in the same sense as ἀνδρός, 1. 6.) husband. But 
besides the want of usus loguendi in its favour, it may be said, that 
the proposition is evidently of a general nature, in respect to such 
individuals as lived under the Mosaic law.—zj is rendered by Flatt 
and others, 1T lives, viz., the law. But first how could this be? If 
the man dies, the law still lives as to others; it becomes inefficacious 
as to him, only by means of λὲς death. It cannot die in any other 
way. Then secondly, what a tautology ; The law is in force (xvg+ 
eves), as long as it isin force (Z4)! Is this the manner of Paul? 
Thirdly, the ἀνὴρ ζῶν and ἀποθανών of verses 2, 3, clearly shows, that 
in ver. 1 ἄνθρωπος is the Nominative to ζῇ. 

(2) Ἢ γὰρ. . . νόμῳ, for the married woman is bound to her hus- 
band by the law, so long as he liveth.—' Yruvdgos, a very expressive 

- word, classical as well as Hellenistic, and like the Hebrew MOA Aw, 
Num. v. 29. In the East, ὕπανδρος denotes a higher degree of dis- 
parity between husband and wife, than is admitted in the western 
world.—Azdera: νόμῳ has a force also here, which commentators have 
generally overlooked. Under the Mosaic economy, the husband 
could divorce the wife almost at pleasure ; but where is the precept 
giving the like liberty to the wife? This would have been contrary 
to the genius of eastern manners and customs. Thisseems to be the 
reason why the apostle has chosen the woman, in this case, in order 
to exhibit an example of obligation while the life of the parties con- 
tinues.— Γάρ wlustrantis; and it might, as to sense, be well translated 
for example. ‘The instance in verses 2, 3, seems to me very plainly 
to be a mere illustration of the general principle in ver. 1. Reiche 
has argued against this, but not in a satisfactory manner 
᾿ Ἐὰν δὲ. . . ἀνδρός, but if her husband die, she ceases to be under the 


804 ROMANS VII. 3, 4. 


conjugal law.—Karigynra: when followed by ἀπό (as in the present 
case), means to cease to belong to any one, to cease to be subject to his 
control; comp. ver. 6 below, and Gal. νυ. 4. In the next verse we 
find ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, in the same sense as κατήργηται ἀπὸ τοῦ 
νόμου in this. Cicumenius: κατήργηταιν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπολέλυται, ἐλευθέρωται. 
80 the Hebrew Ὁ 2293 is used.—Tod ἀνδρός, Gen. of relation, viz., the 
law which related to her husband, i. 6.7 the conjugal law which gave 
him power and right as a husband. 

(3) “Aga οὖν . . . ἑτέρῳ, therefore if she marry another, during her 
husbands life, she shall be called an adulteress ; 1. ¢., it follows from 
the nature of her obligation, that she cannot be united with another 
man while her husband is living. “Aga οὖν, so then; an intensive 
form of particles designating conclusion.—Xgnuarioz, she shall bear 
the name of, she shall receive the appellation of. This usage of the 
word belongs to later classics; in which the verb puts the name 
called into the Nominative after it; ἐχρημάτιζε βασιλεύς, Diod. Sic. 
XX. 54. 

Tod μὴ εἶναι αὐτήν, so that she shall not be. The classic Greek 
would usually express this by ὥστε μὴ εἶναι αὐτήν. But Infinitives 
with στοῦ are very frequent in the Septuagint and in the New Testa- 
ment; even in cases where, like the present, the end or event is 
designated by the article. In this respect τοῦ before the Infinitive 
resembles the Hebrew ?, which expresses either purpose, design, or 
else end, event. N. Test. Gramm. § 138. 8. 

(4) “Qore (compounded of ὡς and τε) standing at the beginning of 
a sentence, must, according to Bretschneider, be rendered igitur, 
quare, 1. ¢., therefore, wherefore. ‘The true sense here indicated by 
it, however, seems to be thus, or so that; 7. 6.5 these things being so, 
you also have become dead to the law, in order that you might be 
affianced to Christ, &c. In other words; allowing that a new con- 
nection may be lawfully formed, after the death of one of the parties 
in the conjugal union, it follows that you, who have become dead to 
the law, ὦ, e., wholly renounced it as an adequate means of sanctifica- 
tion, may be affianced solely to Christ, &e.—Ka/ ὑμεῖς, you also, i. δ.» 
you having become dead to the law may be aftianced to another. 

Τῷ νόμῳ, the Dative of specification, i. e., designating the particular 
thing in respect to which Christians have become dead; N. Test. 
Gramm. ὃ 106.1. The declaration that they had become dead to the 
law, is new in respect to form. Dead to sin the apostle has asserted 
them to be, in chap. vi.; he has also asserted that they are not ὑπὸ 


c 


ROMANS VII. 4. 395 


νόμον, Vi. 14, But that they were dead to the law, is a new expres- 
sion and one which of course would need some explanation. ‘Ihe 
writer immediately subjoins one: διὼ rod σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. He must 
of course mean the body of Christ as crucified, as having suffered in 
order to redeem us from the curse of the law; comp. Heb. x. 5—10. 
Col. i. 22. ii. 14. 1 Pet. ii. 24. Eph. ii. 15, which do not seem to 
leave any doubt with respect to the meaning of σῶμα Χριστοῦ here. 
As Christ, by his death, is made unto us “ righteousness and sanc- 
tification, and redemption ;” so it is his death which has opened such 
new prospects for perishing sinners, that they are enabled to look 
away from the law, and to renounce it as an effectual means of 
sanctification. Hence the apostle says: “Ye have become dead to 
the law, by the body of Christ.” 

Εἰς τὸ γένεσθαι . . . ἐγερθέντι, in order that ye should be [affianced] 
to another, who has risen from the dead; i. e., Christ has called you 
away from your vain hopes and expectations respecting what the law 
could accomplish as to purifying and saving you, and admitted you 
to participate in the blessed fruits of his death, viz., the gift of a sanc- 
tifying Spirit. But although by his death you are freed from the 
relation in which you once stood to the law as a means of sanctifi- 
cation, yet you are not affianced to him as being dead, but as being 
risen from the dead, as a conqueror who has burst the bars of death, 
and ascended to glory at the right hand of God the Father. 

Ἵνα . . . « - Θεῷ, 80 that we may bring forth fruit to God; 7. 6. 
such fruit as God will accept. θεῷ, Dat. commodi. The reader 
will observe, that the last circumstance noted here is the climax of 
the figurative language used by the apostle. First, there is an annul- 
ling of a former marriage contract by the death of one of the parties; 
next, there is a new union; and lastly the fruits of this, and also the 
object of it, are designated. To bring forth fruit for God or unto 
God, is to live a holy life, to yield obedience unto his precepts, to act 
in such a manner as to do honour to him. Reiche says, that the 
whole of vers. 1—4 affords nothing more than a subjective argument; 
not an objective one; ὁ. e., that the representations made are merely 
in the way of accommodation to Jewish views, and not as founded 
in the nature of things. But heseems to have mistaken the nature 
of the apostle’s design. Argument in a strict sense, the passage does 
not contain, but merely tdlustration. The similarity between the 
two cases presented, rests partly on the nature of them, and partly on 
his own declarations. The case in regard to husband and wife, he 

τί 


306 ROMANS VII. 3. 


takes it for granted his readers will admit; the similarity of the 
Christian’s case to this, rests in part on his own declaration or au- 
thority. Does this never supply the place of formal argument? Or 
are we to concede no authority to the apostle as to the determination 
of matters in religion? It is too true, alas, that Reiche does not 
appear to make any concessions of this nature. 


CHAP. VII. 5, 6. 


‘ Bur what if we are dead to the law?’ the objector might here repiy; ‘ what if, in our new re- 
lation, we are affianced in a peculiar manner to Christ; does it follow from this that the law was 
80 inefficacious in itself for our sanctification, as you represent it to be? Nay, what you say im- 
plies even more ; it implies that it is only in our new state of affiance to Christ, that we can 
bring forth fruit to God; and that, while under the law, no fruit but such as is of a contrary na- 
ture can be produced.’ 5 

At this crisis of the discussion, the apostle comes out with his last, highest, and boldest asser- 
tion concerning the law, as to its efficacy with respect to the point under consideration, viz., its 
eflicacy to sanctify the hearts of sinners. His course of thought seems to be in substance as 
follows: ‘ I have said that you must be freed from the law and united to Christ, in order that you 
may bring forth fruit to God. This is true; for the law is so far from accomplishing the great 
end of subduing and sanctifying the hearts of sinners, that it occasions just the opposite effect, 
i. e., it is the occasion of their becoming more deeply involved in guilt, and of bringing them into 
more aggravated condemnation. Itis the occasion of their bringing forth fruit unto death, and 
not unto God. But when we are freed from all reliance upon it as a means of subduing and 
sanctifying us, and with a becoming sense of our guilt and helplessness have betaken ourselves to 
Christ, and relied on him only as our “sanctification and redemption,” then we are enabled to serve 
God with a new spirit, and not in the old way of only a literal and external obedience 

These were propositions of a bold and startling nature tothe Jewish legalist. Some formidable 
objections would at once rise up in his mind against them. The apostle fully anticipates this 3 
and as we shall see in the sequel, occupies the remainder of chapter vii, in canvassing and answer- 
ing them. 

In the mean time let it be noted, that ver. 5 here is the theme of discussion through vers. 7— 25 
in the sequel; while ver. 6 (the antithesis of ver. 5) constitutes the theme of chap. viii. 1—11, 
which is in all important respects the antithesis of vii. 7—25, Knapp, Tholuck, Flatt, and other 
distinguished commentators, have seen and noted this ; and in fact it lies on the face of the whole 
discussion, if the reader will only lay aside for a moment his attention to particular words and 
phrases, and look simply after the course of thought and reasoning which the apostle pursues. 


(5) "Ore γὰρ... σαρκί, for when we were in the flesh; i.e, when 
we were in our natural or carnal state. That such is the meaning 
of this expression, and that it isnot to be Literally taken here, is clear 


ROMANS Vir. 6. 307 


from the usus loquendi, and from the nature of the case. From the 
first ; because they who are in the jlesh, as contrasted with τοῖς ἐν 
Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, in chap. vill. 1—11, where vers. 7—9 put beyond all 
question what ἐν σαρκὶ εἶναι means. From the second; because the 
contrast in vers. 5, 6, is between the character which those whom 
the apostle addresses sustained before they became affianced to Christ, 
and that which they sustained after they were affianced tohim. Of 
course ἐν σαρκὶ εἶναι must: mean to be in a natural or unregenerate 
state, i. 6.7 to be in that state in which men not yet united to Christ 
are. , 

Τὰ παϑήματα . . «- + νόμου, our sinful passions which were by the law ; 
ὦ. é., our sinful passions which were occasioned by the law, ver. 11. 
--- τῶν ἁμαρτίων, Gen. of attribute, our passions which lead us to sin, 
our sinful passions.—Ta διὰ τοῦ νόμου [sc. ὄντα or γεγονότα], which were 
by the law; not, as Chrysostom and Carpzov, τὰ διὼ τοῦ νόμου | φαινόμενοι 
or γνωστά], which were shown or disclosed by the law; and not as 
Locke (Comm. on Romans), that remained in us under the law, who 
construes διὰ νόμου as διά conditionis, viz., we being in a law state. To 
both of these methods of commentary ver. 12 is an unanswerable 
objection, as it is the author’s commentary upon his own words. 
Moreover, the laws of language forbid the exegesis of Mr. Locke; for 
to make the sense which he gives, the Greek must be; ἡμεῖς διὼ τοῦ 
νόμου ὄντες, Not τὰ [παϑήματα] διὰ τοῦ νόμου. ' 

Ἔνεργεῖτο . . « . ϑανάτῳ, put forth their energy in our members, to 
bring forth fruit unto death. ᾿Ἐνεργεῖτο, vm suam exserebat, efficax 
fuit. We must refer it to the Middle voice in order to make out the 
proper sense, which is active.— Ev τοῖς μέλεσιν quay, the same in sense 
as σῶμα ϑνητόν in vi. 12, as may be seen by comparing ver. 23 below. 
Μέλη is used as an equivalent for σῶμα, because the members of the 
body are its efficient agents in doing any thing. 

Such was the influence of our sinful passions, τὰ διὰ τοῦ νόμου, that 
the consequences were fatal. Our fruit was unto death, 1. e., was such 
as turned to the account of death, such as brought us under its power 
or subjected ustoit. The Dat. τῷ ϑανάτῳ isa kind of Dat. commodi; 
as expressed in the paraphrase above. Θάνατος is here used in the 
way of personification, and put in antithesis to Θεῷ in ver. 4. 

(6) Thus much, then, for the influence of the law upon us in our 
natural state. [twas utterly unable to effect our renewal and sanc- 
tification ; nay, it did but aggravate our guilt and condemnation, 
instead of delivering us from them. It is only in our new state and 


808 ROMANS VII. 6. 


under our new affiance, that we are enabled to bring forth fruit of a 
different kind. | 

Νυνὶ 62... . νόμου, but now being freed from the law ; i. e., no longer 
placing our reliance on it as a means of subduing and sanctifying our 
sinful natures. For the sense of κατηργήϑημεν, compare κατήργηται ἀπὸ 
rod νόμου in ver. 2 above. 

"AcoSavivres is a controverted reading; and there are some varia- 
tions in the manuscripts. But the weight of exterral evidence is 
greatly in its favour; and the internal evidence seems to be quite 
conclusive. The sentiment of it is exactly the same, as that of ἔϑανα- 
τώϑητε τῷ νόμῳ inver. 4above. Here the first person plural is used, 
—and there the second; but this changes not the nature of the senti- 
ment. ‘The full construction here would seem to be: arodavévres 
[ ἐκείνῳ] ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεϑα. A goodly number of authorities, viz., D., E., 
F., G., Vulg., It., Codd. apud Rufin., read τοῦ ϑανάτου here instead 
of ἀποϑανόντες. KR. Simon and Reiche prefer this reading.—The ver) 
κατέχω means to hold back, to retain, to hold firmly, &c. Here κατει- 
χόμεϑα must mean, the holding as it were in a state of bondage, from 
which the gospel frees. Ev ᾧ, 1. 6.) ἐν ᾧ νόμῳ. 

The sense of the whole may be made more facile by a different 
arrangement: but now being dead [to the law], we are freed from the 
law by which we were held in bondage. 

Ὥστε... γράμματος, so that we may now serve [God] in a new and 
spiritual manner, and not in the old and literal one. ‘That Θεῷ is to 
be understood after δουλεύειν, seems certain from the nature of the 
antithesis, and from comparing vers. 4, ὅ.--- Πνεύματος I take to be the 
Gen. of attribute or explanation. ᾿Ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος, na newness 
of a spiritual kind, i. e., in a new and spiritual manner. So παλαιότητι 
γράμματος designates the former method of Literal external obedience, 
which the Jews endeavoured to render to the law while ἐν σαρκί. 
There was no heart in it. God is a Spirit; and he must be wor- 
shipped ἐν πνεύματι. But this command is obeyed, only when there 
is a “new heart and a right spirit” in men; and this is not until 
they become affianced to Christ. “The law,” says Calvin, “puts a 
check upon our external actions ; but it does not in the least restrain 
the fury of our concupiscence.” 


ROMANS VII. 7. 309 


CHAP. VII. 7—12. 


WE must expect the legalist to rise up with not a little excitement against the declaration of 
the apostle, viz., τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τὰ διὰ τοῦ vouov. * What! then,’ he would at once 
say, ‘are we to believe that the holy and perfect law of.God is not only incompetent to 
sanctify us, but that it is even the occasion of our being greater sinners than we should other- 
wise be? Can it be lawful or proper to make such an insinuation as this?’ Is the law 
sin ? 

To this objection the apostle now replies; and replies in such a way as to show, that while 
“he fully maintains his ground, viz., that the law is the occasion of greatly aggravating our 
guilt and condemnation, still the fault lies in us, and not in the law; for this is altogether 
worthy of approbation and obedience, beeause it is “holy, just, and good.” This is at once a 
delicate and difficult part of the apostle’s discourse, and it ismanaged with great skill and effect. 
How often it has been misunderstood, and construed so as to be irrelevant to the object which 
the writer has in view, will be better seen in the sequel. Im the mean time, I must beg the 
reader to dismiss ev2ry thing from his mind but the simple desire to know what the verses before 
us mean, when explained by the object of the writer, the nature of the connection in which they 
stand, and the language which is employed. 


(7) Ti ody... ἁμαρτία; What shall we say then? Is the law 
sin? Language of the objector, in opposition to what the apostle 
has said in verse 5.—'Ayaeria, from the necessity of the case must 
here mean, the cause of sin. So Mic. i. 5, “ What is the trans- 
gression of Jacob? Is it not Samaria?” 7. ¢., what is the cause of 
Jacob’s transgression, &c.? Eph. i. 16, “having slain the enmity 
thereby,” ὁ, ¢. the cause of enmity. To give ἁμαρτία a different 
sense here, would be inept. 

Μὴ γένοιτο is the answer of the apostle. He means by it wholly 
to deny the charge involved in the previous question, in the sense in 
which the legalist supposed the charge might be made, viz., that the 
law was the efficient cause or the sinful cause of our sin, and that 
our guilt might be justly put to the account of the law. So much 
is plain from the sequel. But he does not mean to deny, that there 
is a sense in which the law is connected with our sins, and that it is 
the occasion of their being aggravated, rather than the efficient 
means of our being sanctified. ᾿Αλλά intimates, that the apostle 
allows of some exceptions to the universal sense of μὴ γένοιτο. It is 
frequently employed, as here, after negative assertions, in order to 
indicate that there is some limitation or qualification of them to be 
made. The course of thought runs thus: ‘ The law is not the sinful 
or efficient cause of sin, in the sense that you suppose ; but still there 
is a sense in which the law is the oceasion of sin.’ What this is, 
the writer goes on to describe. 


810 ROMANS VIL 7. 


Τὴν ἁμαρτίαν... νόμῳ, 1 had not known sin except by the law. 
By what law? As a general proposition, it would be true as to the 
law of nature or of revelation. ‘ Where there is no law, there is no 
transgression,” Rom. iv. 15. When the apostle (Rom. i.—ii.) speaks 
of the Gentiles as sinners, he makes them offenders against the law 
of nature written upon their hearts, Rom. ii. 14, 15; and when he 
convicts the Jews of guilt, he represents them as offending against 
revelation. What is said in the verse before us, if understood in a 
general way, might be explained and defended, then, on general 
principles. But plainly this is not the object of the writer here. 
He is controverting the legalists. And who are they? Jews, not 
Gentiles: at least, they usually were not Gentiles. It is the Jewish 
law, then, to which he here adverts. 

- But in what sense would he not have known sin, except by the 
law? Surely the Gentiles were sinners, who had no revelation; as 
he has abundantly shown in chaps. 1. ii. This consideration leads us 
of course to say, that the meaning of known (ἔγνων) is a qualified 
and comparative one, in the present passage. The meaning must be. 
that he would not have known sin in any such manner and measure 
as he then actually did, had it not been forthe law. In this idea is 
included, not a mere theoretical and as it were scientifical knowledge 
of it, but that knowledge which is derived from experience, and 
experience in a high degree. The explanation subjoined in verse 8, 
appears to leave no room to doubt this exegesis. The simple 
explanation of the whole seems to be this: “ Unless the law had put 
restraint upon sinning, I should never have known how great my 
wickedness is, or how much propensity to evil L have. The restraints 
of the law galled my evil passions, and they broke out with redoubled 
violence ; and in this way I have come, from bitter experience, to 
know much more of the nature and extent of my sinfulness. I 
should never have known to what extent I:was capable of going 
had not the restraints of the law brought me to a full development of 
myself. I was excited by the check which they put upon me; and 
I acted out myself in such a manner as I never should have other- 
wise done; and in this way I have come to know my sinfulness, 
through the law. In this way πᾶσα ἐπιθυμία (verse 8) was wrought 
in me, so that I have a knowledge of sin such as I never should have 
acquired in any other way, 

Jn this compound sense of fuller development and (through this) 
of more complete means of knowledge, does the apostle apnear to 


ROMANS VU. 7. 311 


affirm that he has acquired a knowledge of sin by the law. Verses 
7 and 8 taken together (and so they should be), can leave no room 
to doubt, that it is not merely the instruction which the law gives 
concerning the nature of sin, which the apostle aims here to describe; 
but a knowledge which is acquired (as described in verse 8), by an 
experimental acquaintance with sin; which had been heightened to 
so great a degree by the restraints of law, as to place the subject of 
it in such a condition as to practical knowledge with regard to his 
own sinfulness, as nothing else could have brought about. 

On any other ground of exegesis, the connection between verses 
7 and 8 must be virtually broken up. The connection is thus: ‘I 
had not known sin, as I now do, except by the law; but now I do so 
know it, because the law has brought out all my sinful nature in 
opposition to it, which would otherwise have never so developed 
itself.’ But if we understaad verse 7 as a mere eulogy of the law, | 
on account of the light which it gives (as not a few commentators 
have deemed it to be); then in what respect 18 verse 8 the antithesis 
of verse 7? That antithesis or distinction is intended, the δέ in 
verse 8 here clearly shows. The true nature of the antithesis seems 
to be this: ‘I had not well known sin, except by the law; but now 
I do so know it on account of the law. Verse 8 shows how and 
why the sinner comes thus to know it, and that it is in an experi- 
mental way. 

Τήν τε γὰρ. -. - ἐπιθυμήσεις, for 1 had not known even lust, unless 
the law had said: Thou shalt not lust. de confirmantis here; 1. 6.» 
it is placed at the head of a clause designed to confirm and strengthen 
the preceding assertion. The second clause is an assertion of the 
same general nature with the first, excepting merely that it is in - 
emphasis more intense. ᾿Ἐπιθυμίαν is a word for which we have no 
equivalent in our language, when it means, as it here does, unlawful 
or sinful desire in general, ¢. ¢., desire of what would be in any way 
injurious to our neighbour. The reference in the mind of the writer 
appears plainly to have been to Ex. xxix. 14, Tn N? &e.3 which 
is well rendered: Thou shalt not covet, i. ¢., shalt not inordinately de- 
sire; but which is rendered in Greek by οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις, thou shalt not 
desire inordinately, thou shalt not lust after or covet. ‘The misfortune 
is, that we have no English noun that. corresponds well to the generis 
sense of the verb covet; for covetousness means a greedy appetite for 
wealth ; and lust means (at least as now employed), impure desire. 
We must then paraphrase ἐπιθυμίαν. and render it mordinate desire, 


312 ROMANS VII. 8. 


forbidden desire. ‘The word, it is true, sometimes means unlawful 
sensual desire ; but plainly it is not here limited to a meaning so cir- 
cumscribed. ‘The reference to Ex. xx. 14, forbids this supposition, 
as well as the nature of the case. 

ΤΈ has given trouble to the critics here. How it differs from καὶ 
may be seen in Bretschn. Lex. τέ. When employed alone (as here), 
it is used to join those things which in their own nature are united 
and naturally follow each other; or those which, for some other rea- 
sons, must be associated together. It is also employed in clauses 
annexed (as here) for the sake of illustration or confirmation. Here 
the last of these reasons seems to apply. ᾿Επιθυμία, in the sense which 
it here has, is a species under the genus ἁμαρτία. The general prin- 
ciple is illustrated, then, by this particular sin which the law inhibits. 
The genius of our language does not permit us to translate τέ here, 
without doing injury to the mode of expression, if not to the sense. 
In Greek it affords a sign to the reader, that he is to connect the 
clause in which it stands with the preceding one. 

That the whole is here to be understood in a comparative sense, 
is a clear case. If no revelation had ever been given to the Jews, 
then, like the Gentiles, they would have had the law of nature to 
guide and check them, Rom. ii. 14, 15. In the absolute sense, then, 
the apostle cannot be supposed to speak. The writer means: ‘I had 
not so known sin as I now know it, except by the law.’ A complete 
and full illustration and vindication of such a comparative sense, 
may be found in John xv. 22—24; which the reader is desired 
attentively to consult. 

(8) This verse explains how the law has been the occasion of 
promoting the knowledge of sin, in the sense which the writer here 
means to convey. ᾿Αφορμὴν d: .... ἐπιθυμίαν, but sin, taking occa- 
sion by the commandment, wrought out in me all manner of inordi- 
nate desire.—Karzpydouro, wrought out; it is more than εἰργάσατο, 
and means more fully to complete, develope, or aceomplish.— Awagria 
is here personified. It cannot mean simply sinful desires or affections ; 
for these are affirmed to be the effect of its influence or operation. 
Nor can it be what is called actual sin; for this again is the effect of 
its operations. It would seem, therefore, that the personification of 
sin in this case must answer to the ἐγὼ σαρκικός and πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν 
ἁμαρτίαν of verse 14 seq.; in other words, that it stands for the car- 
nul man, as such, who is opposed to the divine law, and who is roused 
by its prohibitions and threatenings to more active engagement in 


ROMANS Vil. 8. 313 


the commission of sin. Accordingly, while ἁμαρτία is employed 
in the way of personification in verses 8—13, in the sequel ἐγὼ cug- 
κικός, for the most part takes its place. If the reader feels that there 
is any incongruity in such a use of ἁμαρτία here, and that it will be 
difficult to adjust all which is affirmed of it to the supposition that 
it stands for ἐγὼ σαρκικός, he must call to mind, that something must 
of course be allowed to the liberty and congruity of prosopopeia. It 
is in fact the carnal J which rouses up the passions, and which is 
the cause of all the evil that follows.. And if the whole passage 
relates to the experience of Christians (as some suppose), even then 
it is the remains of the carnal J in them, which occasions all the 
evil. But how or why did sin take occasion by the commandment 
to produce all manner of inordinate desires? The apostle does not 
definitely answer this question, but leaves it to be supplied, as a 
matter of course, by his readers. What then is the principle in 
human nature, which he seems to consider so obvious as to need no 
mention? [0 is the one, I answer, to which I have already more 
than once adverted ; viz., that opposition to the desires and passions 
of unsanctified men, inflames them and renders them more intense 
and unyielding. So most of the commentators. Calvin: Neque 
inficior quum acrius a lege exstimuletur caro ad concupiscendum.— 
Per legem instigatur cupiditas nostra, ut in majorem ebulliat insa- 
niam.—Vitiosa hominum natura, cujus perversitas ac libido, quo 
magis justitiz repagulis coérceretur, eo furiosius erumpit (in ver. 5). 
Chrysostom : Ὅταν γάρ τινος ἐπιθυμοῦμεν, εἶτα κωλυώμεθα, αἴρεται μᾶλλον 
τῆς ἐπιθυμίας ἡ φλόξ, when we covet any thing, and are hindered from 
obtaining it, the flame of our inordinate desire ts the more augmented. 
Erasmus: Universa cupiditatum cohors irritata, prohibitione ccepit 
acrius ad peccandum solicitare. A most’ striking and melancholy 
example in point is, that prohibition and penalty were not sufficient, 
even in paradise, to prevent our first parents from ruining themselves 
and all their posterity. 

The very heathen fully acknowledged the principle in question ; 
so plainly is it a part of our nature. Thus Cato (Liv. xxxiv. 4) says 
of luxury, Non mota, tolerabilior esset quam erit nunc; ipsis vincu- 
lis, sicut fera bestia, irritata deinde emissa. Seneca: Parricide cum 
lege coeperunt, de Clem. 1.23. Horace: Audax omnia perpeti, gens 
humana ruit per vetitum nefas, Carm. I. 3. Ovid: Nitimur in 
vetitum sempcr cupimusque negata, Amor. III. 4. To the like pur- 
pose is Proy. ix. 17: Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in 


914 ROMANS vil. 8. 


secret is pleasure. Now as this is an obvious principle of a corrupt 
natural state, and will account for the fact which the apostle has 
asserted in the text, we may adopt the conclusion that it dies at the 
ground of his assertion. ‘Awaeria, therefore, as here employed in the 
way of personification, designates the ἐγὼ σαρκικός. 

Observe the strength of the expression, διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς... ἐπιθυμίαν; 
as much as to say, ‘ Sin, ὃ. 6.) my disposition to sin, did not simply 
produce ἐσιθυμίαν, ὁ. 6.5 some inordinate desire that would lead to the 
commission of evil—but πᾶσαν ἐσιθυμίαν, every kind of inordinate 
desire, a great variety of evil passions.’ ‘To account for this, we 
must resort to the principle already stated. It should be noted here, 
also, that in this way it was, that the law became the occasion of 
his obtaining a knowledge of sin, which he would otherwise never 
have acquired. So the sequel intimates: 

Χωρὶς γὰρ νόμου ἁμαρτία vexed, for without the law sin is dead; t. Coy 
comparatively sluggish and inoperative; comp. James ii. 17, 26, 
τίστις vexed. Xwoig νόμου is equivalent tO μὴ ὄντος νόμου, ὃ, 6.» there being 
no law. ‘That such must be the sense, the preceding declaration 
shows; the amount of which is, that ‘sin did by the commandment 
produce all kinds of inordinate desire in him.’ Now if this be cor- 
rect, then sin, without such commandment, ὁ. ¢., without such an 
occasion of producing πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν, would be comparatively in- 
operative. For the comparative sense of the whole passage the 
reader is again referred to John xv. 22—24. That the apostle could 
not mean to be understood in the absolute sense, is plain from chap. 
i. ii., where the Gentiles are charged with sin, who nevertheless are 
without the particular law here spoken of, 7. e., without a revelation. 
In the absolute sense, the time never has been, and never can be, 
when men are without the law. “The heathen, who have no 
[written] law, are a law unto themselves.” No individual, at any 
period of his life when he is capable of moral action, can be said to 
be without law in the absolute sense; for the law always exists, in- 
dependently of this or that individual. The meaning of Paul, then, 
according to the views which he himself inculcates, must be this, 
viz., that before an individual has any particular and definite views 
of the nature and extent of the divine law as to its prohibitions and 
penalties. When these first come home to his mind with power, 
then it is that he, through enmity and opposition to them, plunges 
deeper than ever into sin, and becomes at the same time more con- 


sciously guilty. 


ROMANS VI. 8. 315 


Reiche places the law here, 7.,¢., the Mosaic law, in opposition 
to the patriarchal state before the law was given; and throughout 
this whole comparison, he makes the ἐγὼ σαρκικός to be the wicked 
portion of the Jewish community, and the 6 éow ἄνθρωπος to mean the 
good part of it; a supposition that must be involved in many serious 
difficulties, and one which seems to me liable to overwhelming ob- - 
jections. One only of these appears to be sufficient ; which is, that 
in this way, the argument of the apostle is rendered nerveless and 
inapposite. For what is his object? Plainly to show, that the law 
is utterly inadequate of itself to the sanctification and salvation of 
men, inasmuch as it in fact (such is the perverted use they make and 
will make of it) only serves to plunge them into deeper guilt, and to 
ageravate their offences. Now how can this be illustrated and en- 
forced by saying, that sinners in ancient times made a bad use of the 
law, and saints approved of it and consented to it? It can be showa 
only by an exhibition of the fact, that no man, simply under the luw, 
has escaped or will be delivered from the power and penalty of sin. 
Why? Because the disposition he has to sin is roused up into greater 
activity by the restrictions of the law, to the holy nature of which 
he is opposed ; and, notwithstanding all the remonstrances of reason 
and conscience against this course of conduct, and in spite of the tes- 
timony which they bear in favour of the holiness and justice and 
goodness of the law, he who is under the law merely, goes on in sin, 
and will do so, until grace arrests his course, and “ frees him from 
the law of sin and death,” viii. 2. How all this can be shown, by 
averring merely that sinners of old were rendered more sinful by the 
Mosaic law, while saints approved it and consented to it, I do not 
see. It is plainly a contest in the breast of the same individual 
which the apostle designs to represent; and he shows that, with 
all which reason and conscience aided by the law can do for him, 
there is no hope of salvation except through the grace of the gospel. 
How can a matter so plain and apposite to the ἈΡΌΡΕΝ 8 purpose be 
overlooked ἢ 

It is singular, also, that not only Reiche, but Glockler likewise, 

-Yepresents ἁμαρτία in this verse as meaning actual sin, and not a dis- 
position to sin or vitiositas. Actual sin, they say, produces sinful 
desires; and these again produce sinful actions in their full develop- 
ment; and thus comes the train of evils which the apostle here ad- 
verts to.. But whence the mother sin? we may well ask; and this 
of course is a question which renders the whole of this theory quite 


316 ROMANS VII. ἢ). 


improbable. It is true, beyond all doubt, that sins of action do be- 
get various lusts, and nearly always do this ; and these in their turn 
develope themselves in action. But the apostle is speaking here of 
something in us which is roused up by the law to produce inordinate 
tlesires, which then bring forth death. Now what is that originally, 
if it be not the native disposition that we have to be excited by sin- 
ful objects, and to oppose holy ones ; and which we, since the fall of 
Adam, possess in a measure that is sure to triumph over all the 
restraints of the divine law, and of reason and conscience, which tes- 
tify in its favour, and remonstrate against our evil passions? I must 
believe, with the great mass of commentators, that ἁμαρτία here is a 
personification of the disposition. The theory of Reiche and Gléck- 
ler, in this case, seems to me to involve a real ὕστερον πρότερον. 

(9) ᾿Εγὼ δὲ ἐζων. .. ποτέ for I was alive once, without the law. 
A difficult and much controverted phrase. The δὲ presents obsta- 
cles in the first place. Is it 62 orationi continuande inserviens, or δέ 
discretiva vel disjunctiva? The first, 1 answer; but it belongs to 
that species of usage which inserts 6¢ before an additional explana- 
tion; “accuratius definit,” Bretsch. Lex. In such a case δέ may be 
rendered moreover, besides. A might be rendered for, inasmuch as 
the connection in which it stands often entitles us so to render it (see 
Passow’s Lex.) ; yet here I have the impression that verse 9 is not 
subordinate to the last clause in verse 8, but co-ordinate. ‘The last 
clause in verse 8 asserts, that sin is dead without the law, while verse 
9 declares that when the law came, sin developed itself with power; 
with which declaration it also connects other additional circum- 
stances. 

The ἐγὼ here must of course mean another sel different from the 
one which ἁμαρτία designates in the verse above. I hesitate, how- 
ever, whether we should here construe it as designating merely sel/, 
i. e., | myself as a person or individual, taken in the usual sense and 
without reference to another and different self; or whether the ὁ tow 
ἄνθρωπος (verse 22) should be here regarded as constituting the ἐγώ. 
On the whole 1 incline to the former, for two reasons ; (1) Because 
the antithetic ἐγώ seems not to be introduced until verse 14 seq. 
(2) What is said in the sequel of the verse would seem rather to 
belong to the whole person, to the man as man, than merely to the 4 
iow ἄνθρωπος in the limited sense in which Paul uses this phrase in the . 
sequel. ᾿ 

Εζων is plainly used here in a comparative sense ; and morcover 


ROMANS VII. 9. 317 


used figuratively not literally. It seems clear that the occasion of 
employing it is the preceding vexed, to which ἔζων of course is the 
direct antithesis. To find out the full meaning of this antithesis, then, 
we must revert to ἁμαρτία vexed. This, we have seen, must be taken 
in the comparative sense, viz., as indicating the comparatively inac- 
tive power and influence of sin, before an individual has a definite 
apprehension of the prohibitions and penalties of the divine law. 
"Ἔζων, then, characterises the state of such a man, by affirming that 
of him which is opposite to that which is affirmed of ἁμαρτία. Now 
as sin is declared in the condition supposed, to be comparatively in- 
operative or dead, so the man himself is comparatively without sin, 
or (in other words) alive; just as when our Saviour says of the Jews, 
‘If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin” To 
say that sin is dead, and to say that the man is alive evidently means 
for substance one and the same thing. So the sequel leads us plainly 
to interpret this passage; for the apostle immediately asserts, that 
as soon as sin gathered new life (ἀνέζησεν) the man died (ἐγὼ ἀπέθανον.) 
Now what was this death, except to come under the active and pre- 
dominating power and penalty of sin? What then must be the lie, 
ἔζων), in this case, but to be free from such a state? But then— 
the whole is beyond all doubt to be taken in a comparative sense. 
For what is the apostle labouring to prove? Not that a man must 
be under the Jewish or revealed law (for that is the law here desig- 
nated), in order that he should be a sinner; for how could this 
agree with chap. i. ii where he labours to convict the Gentiles of 
sin? He is labouring here to show, that the law, instead of sancti- 
fying and saving men, is, through their abuse of it, the means of 
plunging them deeper in guilt. In other words; the Jewish law, to 
which so many are prone to look as the means of safety and sanctifi- 
cation, does actually serve, under the present circumstances and con- 
dition of men, to render them more guilty than they would otherwise 
have been. Of course then the ἔζων here must have a sense which 
is comparative, and is fitted for the object and aim of the writer; and 
this can be nothing more nor less than to say, that before an indivi- 
dual has a distinct and vivid perception of the nature and spirituality 
and extent of the divine law, he is less active and desperate in his sin 
and guilt than after he comes to such a knowledge. And thus ex- 
plained, all is easy, natural, and coherent. The reader cannot fail 
to observe, also, how exactly this sentiment parallelises with that in 
chap. iii. 20, where Paul declares, that “ the law entered so that sin 


( 


318 ROMANS VIL 3 


would or should abound.” It is the unabounding state of it, then, 
which is described in our text by ἐγὼ ἔζων. 

The various solutions given by commentators may now be brief y 
subjected to the reader’s view. Calvin, Augustine, and others, have 
advanced the opinion, that ἔζων here means: ‘ I deemed myself alive 
once,’ ἡ, 6.7 before I understood the spirituality and extent of the 
Jaw. But in such a case, if we will go through with the exegesis, 
we shall see at once the insuperable difficulty which attends it. For 
example: ‘I once deemed myself spiritually alive ; but when I came 
under conviction by the law, a sense of sin revived and I was brought 
to deem myself spiritually dead (so far all seems well); ‘and the 
commandment which was designed to give life, proved to be deadly 
(εἰς ϑάνατον) to me;’ it was deadly to me, because it brought me 
under real and true conviction as to my desperate spiritual con- 
dition! Is this then the way in which the law of God proves fatal 
to the sinner, viz., by convincing him of the true and deadly nature 
of sin ?* 

Bretschneider and others understand ἔζων here in the simple sense 
of degere vitam, to exist or be for any length of time. But the nature 
of the antithetic language here does not seem to permit this; for in 
the sequel ἀπέθανον is plainly opposed to ἔζων here; but ἀσέϑανον cannot 
be the antithesis of ἐζων taken in the sense of vitam degebam, for then 
ἀπέϑανον must mean physical death; which surely is not the sense of 
it there. 


* Mr. Barnes in his recent Commentary, agrees with Calvin in construing ἐγὼ ἔζων as mean- 
ing, ‘I deemed myself alive ;’ yet in giving the exegesis of ἐγὼ ἀπέθανον which immediately 
follows, he says: “1 was by it involved in additional guilt and misery.” At the same time he 
remarks in the very next sentence, that ἐγὼ ἀπέθανον “stands opposed to ἐγὼ ἔζων." In this 
last particular he is beyond all doubt correct; but then, if ἐγὼ ἔζων means only a putative living, 
or ‘ I thought myself to be alive, of course ἐγὼ ἀπέθανον, on his own ground, must mean a puta- 
tive death, or ‘I thought or deemed myself to be dead.’ I see no escape from this on the ground 
of philology and exegesis. And this admitted, we must come to the singular conclusion, that the 
law ruins sinners by bringing them under a sense of their guilt and condemnation. Indeed, he 
himself suggests that ἐγὼ ἀπέθανον may inelade the sentiment, that ‘the converted sinner is 
humbled, subdued, melancholy, helpless,’ é. ¢., that.he is brought to a feeling and proper sense of 
all this by the law. -But if this be true, how can the commandment be els θάνατον ὃ How 
could the apostle say, that “he was slain διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς Ῥ Are men led eis θάνατον by being 
“humbled and subdued?” A mind so lucid and powerful as that of this excellent writer, can- 
not fail to perceive that there are incongruities in such a mode of interpretation; while, by the 
exegesis as given above, the antithesis is made out in the most simple way, and all is plain and 
casy. At all events, I am unable to hesitate, in a case which seems to be so obvious; and the 
pbraseology here in question, is that which must give a hue to the interpretation of all the rest 


of this chapter. 


—_— 


ROMANS vil. 10, 319 


As to the question, When was the period of being χωρὴς νόμου ὃ 
Augustine, Origen, Ernesti, Morus, and others, suppose that the 
apostle means the period of infancy; Luther, Ammon, and others, 
the period before he was taught by Gamaliel; Theodoret supposes 
healludesto his pre-existence in Adam! Calvin and Beza seem plainly 
to have hit nearest to the point; “ Intellige lezem venisse, cum ab 
eo ceepit intelligi.” It seems plain, that Paul must mean some 
application of the law to himself in a new manner, or in a way dif- 


ferent from any which be had before experienced. When this was, 


he does not say. We may suppose it to be in childhood, or in riper 
years. The principle is the same. Whenever the law of God was 
pressed on his mind and conscience with such a weight and power 
that he could not dismiss attention to its demands, then began his 
active and increased opposition to it. Before this, sin was compa- 
ratively dead. Now it revived in all its strength, and brought him 
into deeper guilt and more aggravated condemnation. 

The 62 after ἐλθούσης is discretive; for that part of the sentence 
which follows is placed in antithesis with the preceding clause.— 
᾿Αμαρτία ἀνέζησε, sin revived or flourished. ᾿Αναζάω means to gather 
new life, to show additional vigour ; and such is clearly the sense here, 
as it does not mean merely. a renewal of a life which had before ex- 
isted. The expression itself 18 plainly one which the writer uses as 
equivalent tO ἁμαρτία. . . . κατειργάσατο ἐν ἐμοὶ πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν, in the 
preceding verse. As there ‘all manner of inordinate desire is said 
to have wrought διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς, so here the consequence of ἐλϑούσης 
τῆς ἐντολῆς, 1s, that stn becomes more vigorous. 

(10) ᾿Εγὼ δέ ἀπέθανον, but I died. 'The δέ may be here regarded as 
discretive, 7. ὁ.» — but, because ἀπέθανον is the antithesis of ἀνέζησε; yet 
I am rather inclined to consider it as simply the sign of adding an- 
other circumstance to the one which precedes it.— Ασέθανον, I died, 
i. é. 1 fell under sentence of death or came into a state of death ; 
for “the soul that sinneth shall die,” “the wages of sin is death.” 
So plainly the next clause explains it, where the death incurred is 
placed in opposition to ‘the life which obedience to the whole law 
would ensure. But then there is plainly an intensive sense to be 
attached here to the word ἀπέθανον: just as there is to the word ἀνέζησ;- 
The apostle means to say (as ver. 8 shows), that sin put forth fresh 
vigour when the commandment came ;.consequently he incurred 


aggravated guilt; and aggravated condemnation must necessarily 


follow. It also lies on the face of the whole, that the writer designs 


920 ROMANS VIt. 11, 12. 


to convey the idea, that the law, instead of affording sanctification 
and deliverance from sin, is the occasion of aggravating both’ guilt 
and condemnation. So he had intimated in vi. 14; and so he here 
proves the fact to be. 

Kai εὑρέθη. . . . εἰς ϑάνατον, and the commandment which was 
designed [to bestow] life, the same was found to be unto death—Kal 
εὑρέθη x. +. A. is evidently a clause added for the sake of intensity 
and variety of expression—an epexegesis of ἀπέθανον, with the addi- 
tion of a new circumstance. In saying ἐντολὴ εἰς ζωήν, there was a 
reference in the mind of the writer to such passages of the Old Tes- 
tament as the following: “ My statutes . . . which if a man do he 
shall even live by them,” Ezek. xx. 11, 13, 21. Lev. xviii. 5, et 
alibi. Mo/ is, in point of sense, to be construed after θάνατον, and is 
a Dat. incommodi ; comp. verse 13, and see N. Test. Gramm. ὃ 104. 
2. Note 1. Fis: 

(11) A repetition of the same sentiment verses 8, 9, with some 
characteristic of the manner in which sin performed its deadly work. 
-Ἡ γὰρ. . .. ἀπέκτεινε, for sin taking occasion by the commandment 
deceived me, and byit slew me. de confirmantis; for the sequel 
shows how the commandment came εἰς ϑάνατον to him. In respect 
to ἀφορμὴν, λαβούσα, see ver. 18. The occasion afforded, was the cir- 
cumstance that the law restrained evil passions; which, in a grace- 
less state of the heart, aggravates opposition to it.—Asd& τῆς ἐντολῆς 
must mean, through the law as an occasional instrument or cause; 
not by it as the efficient cause of sin, which the sequel denies the law 
to Ρ6.---Ἐξηπάτησέ we seems to mean the deceit which our sinful pas- 
sions practise upon us, by leading us to regard all restraint of them 
as unreasonable and oppressive, and to feel that we are in the right 
when we resist such restraint. The consequences of such a feeling 
will be, to.obey our passions and not the law. Of course we are 
slain by such deceit; it leads us to plunge into ruin.—A? αὐτῆς must 
mean δέ ἐντολῆς. In what sense sin slays through the commandment, 
has been once and again stated. 

(12) “Ὥστε ὁ wiv... ἀγαθὴ, 80 that the law is holy, and the command- 
ment holy and just and good. “Qere at the beginning of a sentence, 
is rendered quare, itaque, igitur, by Bretschneider, (Lex.) The true 
force of it seems to be so that, ὃ, e., things being as I have said, it fol- 
lows, that, &c. In consequence of such a connection, wore may be ren- 
dered wherefore, therefore; for it is, in the classics, not unfrequently | 
employed as an intensive particle of conclusion.—M% is difficult of 


ROMANS VII. 12. 321 


grammatical solution here. Taken as the usual sign of protasis, 
where (we may ask) is the apodosis? Καὶ ἡ ἐντολὴ x. τ. δ. will not 
make one, for it is merely epexegetical of ὁ νόμος ἅγιος. Bretschneider 
(Lex.) says, that μέν here cannot be translated. Be it so; it must be 
true, I think, that the writer had some apodosis in his mind when 
he employed it. I know it is often the case, in the Greek classics, 
that ~ is employed without any subsequent apodosis being ex- 
pressed. But is it used unless one is implied? I think not. What 
then is the implied apodosis here? We may probably supply it from 
verse 13; and if so, it would seem to be this: ἁμαρτία δέ ἐστιν ἡ κατερ- 
γωζομένη Scavarov διὰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ νόμου. Riickert makes the implied 
apodosis to be, ὁ δὲ "Ievdaios κακὸς χαὶ ἄδικος. 

It will be perceived, that the present verse is not a regular logical 
deduction from the preceding verses. The writer means to say, that 
the view which he has taken of the case is such, on the whole, that 
the excellence and purity of the law stand entirely unimpeached. 
The law is indeed the occasion, but it is the innocent occasion, of sin. 
It is the abuse of it which makes men sinners. It is their evil pas- 
sions which convert what in its own nature tends to life, into an 
instrument of death. The reason of repeating both νόμος and ἐντολή 
here, seems to be, that both had been employed in the preceding 
illustration; see verses 7—10. If there be any difference between 
the two words, it must be this, viz., that νόωος is the generic appella- 
tion of the divine law, 7M: while ἐντολή corresponds to ΡΠ, i. 6.» 
any particular precept. As used by the writer, however, no differ- 
ence seems to be here intended. ‘Ayia means holy, free from all 
moral defect, free from sin, opposed to sin. δικαία, agreeable to δίκη, 
ὦ. @. promoting justice and punishing sin. ᾿Αγαθή, good in its object 
and end, tending to secure the ends of benevolence. The most 
appropriate to the apostle’s purpose here of all the qualities which 
he mentions, is that of holiness. Hence, ὁ νόμος ἅγιος and ἡ ἐντολὴ 
ἁγία. 
~ Thus muci in vindication of the sentiment, that the law is the 
occasion of our guilt being aggravated instead of delivering us from 
it. The vindication of that character of the law as now stated in 
verse 12, follows next. But before we proceed to consider this, we 
must endeavour to solve some questions which naturally arise here. 

The reader has doubtless perceived, that I suppose the apostle to 
be here speaking of himself when in a legal state or under the law, 
and before he was spiritually united to Christ. This I must, on the 

x 


522 ROMANS VIT. 12. 


whole, believe to be the case. In support of this view many reasons - 
may be offered; but some of them I must defer to the close of the 
whole chapter. It is sufficient for my present purpose to state, that 
verses 7—11 plainly appear to be a defence and confirmation of the 
obnoxious expression (obnoxious to the legalist) contained in verse 5. 
It is this verse, surely, which gives occasion to the objection ex- 
pressed at the beginning of verse 7; and it is of course the same, 
therefore, which is the theme of verses 7—11. But on looking back 
to verse 5, we find ἦμεν ἐν τῇ σαρκί to be the condition of the person, 
on whom the law of God produced the unhappy effect stated in the 
sequel. Indeed the case of itself determines this; for surely the 
law of God is not the object of the belierer’s hatred, nor does it en- 
kindle his passions and aggravate his offences; it reproves, restrains, 
moderates, subdues, his evil affections and desires. To prove this, 
would be as superfluous as to prove that the renewed heart loves 
and approves of holiness It is surely none but an unsanctified 
heart which can make such a use of the law of God as is stated in 
verses 7—11. 

Moreover, the difficulties attending the usual exegesis (usual in 
modern times and among a certain class of writers) of this passage, 
are truly appalling. 17. g., vers. 9, 10, are thus explained: ‘I thought 
myself alive, z. e., holy or good, before Iwas brought under convic- 
tion by the law; but when this conviction took place, a penitential 
sense of sin became strong and active; I was then fully persuaded 
that I deserved condemnation (ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπέθανον): and I found that 
instead of keeping the commandment, I had only brought myself 
under its penalty” Now all this would do well, in itself considered ; 
the sentiment is evangelical and correct. But the difficulty in 
obtaining this sentiment from the passage before us, is, (1) That one 
must violate the usus loguendi. (2) He must bring contradiction 
and inextricable difficulty into the context. (3) He must make the 
writer assert what is irrelevant to his present purpose. 

First, to construe ἁμαρτία ἀνέζησεν as meaning a penitential sense 
of sin revived or became strong, has no parallel in Scripture. ‘Aap. 
cia cannot be shown ever to mean penitential sense of sin. As little 
too can ἐζων be shown to mean, J thought myself alive, i. e., righteous. 
Both renderings are discrepant from all usus loquendi. 

Secondly, if we take this meaning of ἁμαρτία, viz., penitential sense 
of sin,and carry it on through yer. 11, which is indissolubly connected 
with verse 10, (asa comparison of vers. 7, 8, and the γάρ in verse 11, 


ROMANS VII. 12. 323 


show), it will makea sense utterly inadmissible. /.g., ‘ A peniten- 
tial sense of sin (ἁμαρτία), taking occasion by the law, deceived me 
and slew me!’ Andis this an exegesis to be admitted? I trust not. 
Sorrow for sin neither deceives nor slays, but just the opposite. Yet 
such a carrying forward of the sense given to ἁμαρτία in verse 10, is 
fairly inevitable, unless one renounces the principles by which a 
writer’s thoughts are connected together. 

Thirdly, such a sentiment as is given to verse 10, is irrelevant to 
the writer’s purpose. His object is to show that he has not rashly 
said, τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τὰ διὼ ποῦ νόμου, Verse 5. How will it 
prove this, if he declares merely that the law undoes the false hopes 
of the sinner, and brings him under true conviction? This would 
seem, at least, to be proving just the opposite of what he designs to 
show. Nor will it help the matter in the least, if you suppose him 
to be speaking of the experience of Christians; for surely it would 
not illustrate the declaration, that the law is the occasion of our evil 
passions being aggravated, to assert that Christians are convinced of 
sin by it, and brought to true penitence. The whole interpretation, 
therefore, which assigns such a meaning to verse 10, appears to be 
inept, and destitute of any adequate support whatever. The senti- 
ment which it brings forward is indeed in itself correct; but whether 
it is the sentiment of the passage under examination—is a very dif- 
ferent question. 

I must proceed, therefore, in explaining the remainder of the chap- 
ter, on the ground that a person in a law-state, and not in a state of 
grace, isdescribed. ΤῸ some of the reasons for this method of inter- 
pretation I have just adverted ; and to some more I must advert, in 
the course of my exposition. But the more ample defence of this 
principle of exegesis, and the answer to the principal objections, I 
reserve to the close of the chapter, because they will then be better 
understood than if they should now be introduced. 

It is proper, however, to say a few words here, respecting the use 
of the first person singular, throughout verses 7—25. Does the 
apostle mean to designate himself specially and peculiarly, or does 
he include others with himself? Others certainly are included, un- 
derstand him as you please. If he speaks of himself while under the 
law, he means by a parity of reasoning to include all others who are 
in the same condition. If he speaks of himself as a Christian, he 
means in the same manner to include all other Christians, who of 
course must have similar experience. So that Ambrose very appro- 


324 ROMANS vil. 13. 


priately and truly says; Sub su& person quasi generalem causam 
agit. ‘The use sometimes of the plural and sometimes of the singular 
number, favours this supposition; comp. verses 5, 7, 14, seq. and viii. 
1, seq. The apostle often employs the first person singular, where 
he is discussing general principles; 6. g., 1 Cor. vi. 12. x. 23, 29, 30. 
xiii. 11—13; Gal. ii. 18, et al. sepe. That it is not unusual for the 
apostles to include themselves, even where they are saying things 
which convey sharp reproof, is also true; 6. g., James iii. 1, 2, 9. 
Whatever ground of exegesis one takes as to chap. vii. in general, 
the principle that Paul speaks of himself only as an example of what 
others are in like circumstances, must of course be admitted. Comp. 
1 Cor. iv. 6, where he explicitly asserts such a principle. Even 
Reiche, who represents the ἐγὼ σαρκικός as the commonwealth of the 
Jews under the law, and the better J as the ideal Jew without sin, 
is still obliged to concede that Paul uses μετασχηματισμός here, 7. ὁ.) 
that he appropriates to himself what belongs to others, or represents 
them in his own person. 


CHAP. VII. 13—25. 


Tur Jew would very naturally ask, on hearing such a declaration as is contained in verse 12 ; 
‘What! then, is that which is good the cause of sin?’ This the apostle represents him as doing; 
and to this question he replies, that it is not the law itself which is the cause of sin, but the abuse . 
of it by the sinner which renders him guilty; and that in this way the odious deformity of sin is 
peculiarly and strikingly exhibited. In the sequel, the apostle proceeds to exhibit in a very for- 
cible manner, the fact that the law can in no way be involved in the charge of being the efficient 
cause of sin, for it stands in direct and perpetual opposition to all the sinful desires of men in an 
unsanctified and carnal state. That it is holy and just and good, is evinced by the fact, that 
the conscience and moral sense spontaneously take sides with it or approve of its precepts. Yet, 
notwithstanding all this, such is the force of sinful desires and lusts, that they triumph over the 
precepts of the law, and lead the unsanctified man to continual opposition and transgression. 
Even against-the voice of reason and conscience, é. e., of an internal moral nature, as well as 
against the divine precepts, does carnal desire prevail; we yield the moral self to the power of the 
carnal self,and plunge deep into ruin, while the voice of God's law is thundering in our ears, 
and the voice of our own consciences is loudly remonstrating against our conduct. ‘ Wretehed 
men that we are!’ Truly wretched while out of Christ, while under the law, while destitute of 
that spirit of adoption, which subdues the carnal man, and leads us to walk κατὰ πνεῦμα, and fur- 
nishes us with grace to do so! 

The purpose of all this illustration or representation, on the part of the apostle, is very 

plain. If-such is the state of those who are under the law, that all its prohibitions, 


ROMANS ὙΠ, 13. 325 


penalties, and commands, will produce no decisive influence in reforming and sanctify ing 
them; if such is the wickedness of unsanctified men, that they refuse to hearken to the 
voice of conscience even as well as of the divine law; then is the condition of the legalist, 
who places his hopes in the sanctifying power of that law, desperate indeed. Well may he 
exclaim, ταλαίπωρος ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος ! tis με ρύσεται ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανατοῦ ; Who can refrain, 
now, from perceiving all this is much to the purpose of the apostle, whose object it is to 
show, that to be under grace, (and not under the law) affords the only hope for the sinner? Ac. 
cordingly, in chap. viii. 1—17, he shows that the opposite of all which he has been before de- 
scribing takes place in the regenerate, and that a filial spirit subdues carnal affections, overcomes 
the world, and enables Christians to walk according to the Spirit; nothing of which is zcecom- 
plished, while men are in the condition described in vii. 14—25. ᾿ 

Now to what special end of the apostle would it be here subservient, if we suppose him to 
be describing a state uf grace in chap. vii2 How does the contest in the breast of Christians 
against sin, prove the inefficacy of the Jaw to sanctify them? For to prove such an inefficacy, 
it must be admitted, is the general object of the present discourse. The fact is that such ἐς 
statement would prove tco much. It would show that grace is wanting in efficacy, as well as 
the law; for the Christian, being a subject of grace, and still keeping up such a contest, one 
might of course be tempted to say, ‘It appears, then, that grace.is no more competent than 
law, to subdue sin and sanctify the heart.’ And indeed why might he not say this, if the 
ground of those who construe all this of. the regenerate man be correct? For what is the real 
state of the whole matter as represented by the apostle? It is, that in every contest here 
between the flesh and the spirit (the moral man), the former comes off victorious. And can 
this be a regenerate state? Is this “ the victory which is of God, and overcometh the world ?” 
“He that is born of God sinneth not;” those that love his law “do no iniquity ;” he that 
loveth Christ “ keepeth his commandments ;” ὁ. 6.. an habitual and voluntary offender such an 
one is not; he gives not himself up to any course of sin; it is his habitual study and effort to 
subdue his passions, and obey the commandments of God. But what of all this is there, in 
the case which the apostle represents in vii. 14—25? Read now chap. viii. 1—17, and then 
ask, Is the man described in vii. 14—25, who yields in every instance to the assault of his 
passions, and suffers them continually to triumph over law, conscience, and every other con- 
sideration, such a man or the same man as is described in viii. 1—17? In this latter passage 
the man is described, “ who walks NoT after the flesh but after the Spirit.” Can this then 
be ‘the same man who does walk after the flesh, and always does this, even when the voice of 
God and conscience is thundering in his ears, and his own internal moral nature is warning 
him against the course he pursues? Impossible. Light and darkness are not more diverse than 
these two cases. 

The transition which is represented as taking place, at the close of chap. vii. and the com- 
mencement of chap. viii. most fully exhibits this. Here is indeed a wonderful transition ; one 
from a state of captivity to the law of sin and death to a state of freedom from both, to the en- 
joyment of the glorious liberty of the children of God. But if the contest in chap. vii. 14—25 
is meant for one which is only in the breast of the regenerate ; then into what state does he go, 
or what is the condition of him, who makes the transition represented in chap. viii.? The only 
answer which can be made, seems to be, that it is from a state cf struggle with sin, to a statein 
which there is no struggle with it. And does the Christian, then, attain to this state in the pre- 
sent life? I will not deny the possibility of it; but as a matter of fact; who will bring adequate 
proof, that he does truly “love God with all his heart and his neighbour as himself,” without 
variation, and to the highest extent of which he is capable? ‘“ If we say we have no sin, we de- 
ceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Such a transition, then, in this case, is utterly im 
probable; and therefore cannot be admitted. 

But put the case which I have supposed above, and which accords with the design of the 
apostle and the language employed, viz., that the transition is from a state in which the carnal 
passions were uniformly victorious, to one in which the holy principle becomes predominantly 
so, and then you have not only a possible but an actual case; yea, thousands and millions of 
actual cases. Can we hesitate then, as to what the object of the writer is, in the passage 
before us ? 


826 | ROMANS Vil. 13, 14. 


(13) Td οὖν ἀγαθὸν... . ϑάνατος; Has then that which is good 
become death to me? i. e., ‘You call the commandment ἀγαθὴ, hind, 
beneficent, productive of happiness; how can that which is bene- 
ficent, be fatal to me? Is not this a contradiction? The answer 
is, μή yévorro! ὃ, @ it is not true that the ἐντολὴ ἀγαθή was of itself 
fatal or deadly to you, ἀλλὰ ἡ ἁμαρτία, but sin [was death to you]; 
for that oo: γέγονε ϑάνατος is implied after ἁμαρτία, is very plain from 
the nature of the sentence.— Αλλά here, as often elsewhere, stands 
before a clause designed to give a true account of a thing in opposi- 
tion to an erroneous one.—T¢yove is wanting in F., G.; and in A., B., 
C., D., E., ἐγένετο stands in its room. The sense is the same in all 
the cases, and hermeneutically the reading is a matter of indifference. 

Ἵνα φανῇ . . » « ϑάνατον, so that sin might exhibit itself as causing 
death to me by that whichis good.—®avqj is 2 Aor. pass. Subj., but 
is employed (as the Aorists pass. often are) in the sense of the Middle 
voice. The meaning is; ‘Sin became the cause of death to me, by 
leading me to abuse the law which was altogether good; and so it 
exhibited, in a true light, its own deadly and odious nature. The 
μοί here and the ἐμοί above are the Dative incommodi. 

Ἵνω γένηται. . . « ἐντολῆς, so that sin, through the commandment, 
might be exceedingly sinful; ἃ, ¢., so that sin, by abuse of the com- 
mandment which was good, and by making it the occasion of death 
to the sinner, and by its opposition to a commandment in its own 
nature holy and just and good, might thus appear to be exceedingly 
aggravated and detestable. Reiche refers the clause to the actual 
increase of sin, after the giving of the law; but γένηται ἁμαρτωλός 
must characterize the heinousness of sin, not the increase as to 
quantity. For καθ᾽ ὑπερβολήν, used adverbially instead of ὑπερβαλλόν- 
τως, comp. 1 Cor, xii. 31. 2 Cor. i. 8. iv. 17. 1 take the two phrases 
in these verses beginning with ἵνα, to be co-ordinate ; and both ot 
them I regard as suspended on ἀλλὰ ἡ ἁμαρτία [ϑάνατος γέγονε]. One 
of the phrases declares that sin developed itself according to its true 
nature, by perverting the holy law of God; the other, that the 
exceedingly odious nature of it was thus made the more manifest. 

(14) οὔδαμεν γάρ some critics divide thus: οἶδα μὲν γάρ. But the 
general usage of Paul is against this; for in appeals of this nature 
he generally uses the plural number and not the singular.—Tde illus- 
trantis et confirmantis for the sequel is designed to illustrate and 
confirm what he has said in respect to the law and sin, in ver. 13. 

Ὃ νόμος πνευματικός sort, the law is spiritual, i. e., the law enjoins 


ROMANS Vit. 14. BPH | 


those things which are agreeable to the nature and mind of the 
Spirit. Jlesh and spirit are often opposed to each other in a variety 
of senses; viz., (1) As flesh is weak and perishable (Gen. vi. 3. Ps. 
Ixxviil. 39. lvi. 4. Jer. xvii. 5. Is. xl. 6), so spirit (9, πνεῦμα), the 
animating and invigorating principle, is sometimes placed in opposi- 
tion to it withthe meaning of strength and permanence; ¢.g., Is, xxxi. 
ὃ. But, (2) The most common usage in the New Testament is the 
tropical one; where σάρξ is viewed as the seat of carnal desires and 
affections, and is often employed to designate them, sometimes simply, 
and sometimes with φρόνημα added to it; while πνεῦμα, when employ- 
ed in the way of antithesis-to it, means a new and holy disposition, 
which is τὴ πνευματικόν, 7. e., something produced by the influence of 
the Spirit of God and guided by this influence. Hence Christians 
are πνευματικοί and unsanctified men are σαρκιχοί, because the former 
are under the influence of the Spirit, and the latter are guided by 
their carnal appetites and desires. All this is quite plain, when one 
reads Rom. viii. 1—17, where the antithesis is fully and explicitly 
stated. 

To say then that the law is πνευματικός, is to affirm that its na- 
ture is pneumatic, t. e., agreeable to the mind or will of the Spirit. 
The antithesis therefore is plain, viz., ἐγὼ δὲ σαρκικός εἶμι, but Lam 
carnal, t. e., | am under the influence of carnal desires and affections. 
Even such desires as do not spring directly from the flesh, are some- 
times named carnal; and thus, it would seem, because most of our 
sinful propensities are in some way connected with the flesh, and 
those which are not, are similar in regard to their moral character. 
For example: in Gal. v. 19—22, the apostle names hatred, envy, 
anger, &¢., as ἔργα σαρκός; and so in Rom. viii. 5—9, κατὰ σάρκα εἶναι 
or περιπατεῦ, includes every kind of vicious conduct. And in the 
passage before us, σαρκικός εἶμι is explained by a clause which the 
writer immediately adds; viz. 

Πεπσραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, sold under sin, τ, e,, the Bindi of sin 
δοῦλος τῆς ἁμαρτίας ; for so the sequel shows him to be, inasmuch as 
he obeys sin in every case, whatever opposition is made to it on the 
part of conscience or the divine law. The language is borrowed 
from the practice of selling captives, who have been taken in war, as 
slaves. They were viewed as having forfeited their lives; and so 
they were sold into astate of the most absolute despotism. In allu- 
sion to this, the apostle represents the person who is still under the 
law, and therefore unredeemed, as being the bond slave of sin. 


328 | ROMANS vir. 15. 


Stronger language than this he could not employ ; and it will be im- 
portant, in the sequel, to look back on this expression in order to 
solve some of the doubts which may arise from ὃ μισῷ ὃ οὐ ϑέλω ἐγώ, 
7) Jers παράκειταί μοι, συνήδομναι τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, Kc. Let the reader 
who wishes to consult the writer’s own exposition of σαρκικός, care- 
fully compare chap. vill. 5—9. 

The law then is good, for it is πνευματικός, %. €., agreeable to the 
dictates of the Spirit. It is not this, therefore, which is the efficient 
cause of men’s sins; it 15 that they are σαρκικοί, devoted to the desires 
of the flesh, following the dictates of its desires. 

(15) That the law does sustain such a character, must be well 
known to the sinner himself. His own reason and conscience take 
sides with the law and approve of its precepts. Yet still so carnally 
inclined is he, that he listens not to these, but acts directly against 
them. In other words, he is actually the slave of sin. 

Γάρ in this verse would seem to have direct relation to the declara- 
tion just repeated. Observe the tenor of it: ‘He does that which 
he dislikes, he is as it were forced by his slavish condition to do that 
which is hateful to his better self’ In this way, the idea that he is 
πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, becomes very prominent. 

In order to express the sentiment which he intends to convey in 
the most striking manner, the apostle divides the person thus in bond- 
age into two selves (if I may thus speak), viz., the νοῦς or ὁ ἐσω ἄνθρωπος 
(vers. 22, 23), and the σῶμα, σάρξ, or carnal part of his nature. In - 
the latter dwell the passions and affections which sway the ἄνθρωπος 
σαρκικός ; in the former is still a portion of the image of God (James 
ii. 9; 1 Cor. xi. 7), which discerns and cannot but approve the 
holy and perfect law of God that is merely a transcript of his own 
nature. If the reader has any question, whether this last state- 
ment is in accordance with the apostle’s views of unsanctified human 
nature, he needs but to turn back and read Rom. ii. 14, 15, in order 
to dissipate his doubts. That the unregenerate have reason and 
conscience, which approve and must approve the divine law, shows 
nothing more than that they are rational and moral beings with 
faculties adapted to a state of moral probation, and that they are 
made in the image of God so far as a rational and moral nature is 
concerned, ‘This is merely saying that they are men, and not brutes. 
The faculty to discern what is good, the power to approve of it, is in 
itself no more holy or sinful, than the faculty of ratiocination is, or 
of seeing or hearing. Nothing can be more unfounded, than the 


ROMANS VII. 15 229 


supposition that moral good is put to the account of the sinner, 
merely because one assigns to him reason to discern its nature and 
conscience to approve it. Without these he could not be a rational 
and moral being. ‘They are mere pura naturalia, to speak in the 
language of the old theology. 

The reader need not be in any degree alarmed, then, for the doc- 
trine of human depravity, when he finds the sinner here represented 
as seeing something of the nature of the divine law and testifying in 
its favour. It is on such ground as this, that the ways of God to- 

“ward men may be vindicated ;~for allowing it to be true, that our 
physical nature is the peculiarly exciting cause of most of our sins, 
we may still ask: ‘Is there not an ἔσω ἄνθρωπος which opposes all in- 
ordinate desires, and warns us to avoid sin and cleave to duty !’ 
And on this ground it is, that God regards the heathen as being 
without excuse; as is clear from Rom. i. ii., especially ti. 14, 15. 

Ὃ yao... « γινώσκω, for that which I do, I disapprove. Karee- 
γάζεμαι rneans more than the simple ἐργάζομαι; it designates the ha- 
bitual doing or practising of any thing.—0d γινώσκω is rendered by 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Tholuck, and others, J know not, i. e., my 
mind is so darkened by sin that I do not perceive the true nature 
of what I am doing; but the explanation which Paul immediately 
subjoins seems to forbid this exegesis, viz., οὗ γὰρ ὃ ϑέλω x. 7.0. Be- 
sides, the very height of the criminality here depicted is, that the sin 
is against light, and knowledge, and conscience. On the other hand, 
that γινώσκω in Greek, as well as the Hebrew 7}, not unfrequently 
means to know in the sense of acknowledging or approving may be 
seen in the lexicons; see Matt. vii. 23. xxv. 12. Luke xiii. 27. Ps. 
i. 6. Hos. viii. 4. That knowledge speculatively considered is not 
here meant, 2. 6.. that οὐ γινώσκω does not mean J am ignorant, insciens 
sum, is clear from the sequel, where the apostle speaks of his neg- 
lecting to do that which he wills. Now what he wills, must be an 
object of perception with him; so that οὐ γινώσκω cannot be under- 
stood of mere intellectual ignorance. 

Οὐ γὰρ ὃ ϑέλω, τοῦτο πράσσω, for not that which fa approve, do I per- 
form. ΨῬὰρ confirmantis, i. e., the clause of the sentence that follows, 
confirms the preceding athena, First, we have a general decla- 
ration. What I do, I disapprove. Next follows a specific one which 
illustrates and confirms it : Jot that which I approve do I perform, 
but I do that which Ihate. If there be any thing paradoxical here 
(and the first view of the case may seem to present a paradox), it is 


330 ROMANS vit. 15. 


occasioned entirely by the plan of the writer to represent the two 
contrary selves in one and the same person. Κατσεργάζομαι belongs to 
the carnal self, and γινώσκω to the νοῦς or ἔσω ἄνθρωπος; and thus in 
succession it is the conscience and reason, ὦ, e., the internal moral 
man, which disapproves (οὐ 324m) and hates (μισῶ), while the carnal 
man practises (πράσσω, ποιῶ) the thing which is disapproved and 
hated. 

All speculative metaphysical questions would here be entirely out 
of place. One might ask: ‘Is it true, then, that a man does what 
he is unwilling to do, and hates to do? This would be not only to 
represent him as acting against predominant motives, but as a ma- 
chine who could not follow his own inclination.’ And on the ground 
of some systems of metaphysical philosophy, the whole would indeed 
be an unaccountable affair, as it is here represented by the apostle; 
although such philosophy is not unfrequently insisted on, and urged 
as being all-important in theology. But still the apostle might make 
the appeal, for his own triumphant vindication, to the breast of every 
man on earth, where the moral warfare has been carried on as he 
describes it, between conscience and passion. And a most exact and 
striking picture it is too. The demonstration of its correctness is 
internal, in the very consciousness of the soul; it depends not on 
metaphysics or ratiocination. 

It is not true, indeed, that a man does that which on the whole he 
is unwilling to do; nor is this what the apostle means to affirm. But 
it is true, that men often do what reason and conscience disapprove; 
and which he here expresses in the strong language of οὐ ϑέλω and 
μισῶ, 1. 6.57 it is the ἔσω ἄνθρωπος of whom this is predicated. And 
even this, in a contrast like the present, is not to be urged to its 
highest point of possible meaning. Thus, for example, μισῶ does not 
always mean positive hatred, but a not loving or merely a compara- 
tively not loving, ἡ. 6.» ἃ less loving; for so the examples in Matt. vi. 
24. Luke xvi..13. xiv. 26, teach us. The last example here is per- 
fectly in point, to show that μισῶ may mean (as it certainly does 
here) merely a less loving of some than others; comp. as exegetical 
of it, Matt. x. 37. . That 92a and μισῶ, then, can both be affirmed 
of the conscience enlightened by the divine law (comp. verse 9), 
when they are understood in this qualified sense (and on any ground 
of exegesis a qualified sense is absolutely necessary), is sufficiently 
manifest. Any one who undertakes to urge the sense of words em- 
ployed in such a contrast as is here presented, to the highest mean- 


ROMANS VII. 15. 331 


ing of which they are capable, must involve himself at least in 
difficulties that are absolutely inextricable. 

_ There isa striking passage in Xenophon (Cyrop. VI. 1), in which 

Araspesthe Persiansays, by way of excusing his treasonable designs: 

“Certainly I must have two souls . ... for plainly it is not one and 

the same which is both evil and good, nor which loves honourable 

and base conduct, and at the same time wishes to do a thing and not 

to do it. Plainly then there are two souls ; and when the good one 

_ prevails, then it does good; and when the evil one predominates, 

then it does evil.” Similar to this is the sentiment in Euripides, 


Medea, 1077, ἐ 


,ὕὔ \ oF ~ 4 
Μανθάνω μὲν, οἷα δρᾷν μέλλω κακά: 
! \ ~ > ~ 
Θύμος δὲ κρείσσων τῶν ἐμῶν βουλευμάτων. 


I know, indeed, that such things as I am about to do, are evil; but 
my mind is better than my inclinations. 


The same poet (as quoted by Clemens Alex. Strom. II. 15) says: 


Λέληθεν οὐδὲν τῶνδε μ᾽ ὧν od νουθητεῖξ' 
Γνώμην δ᾽ ἐχοντά μ᾽ ἡ φύσις βιάξφεται. 


I have forgotten none of the things respecting which you have ad- 
monished me; but although I have a desire to do them, nature forces 
me another way. 

To the same purpose, and in a manner very much like that of 
Paul, Epictetus says (Enchirid. Il. 20). ‘O ἁμαρτάνων, ὃ μὲν Sree οὗ 
ποιεῖ καὶ ὃ μὴ ϑέλει, ποιεῖ. So Plautus, (Trinummus, Act. 1V. Scen.2, 
verse 31) : Scibam ut esse me deceret, facere non quibam miser; ἢ 
knew that it was becoming, but, me miserable! I could not do it. 
Seneca (Hp. III): Quid est . ... quod nos alio tendentes, alio 
trahit, et eo unde recedere cupimus repellit? Quid colluctatur 
cum animo nostro, nec permittit nobis quidquam semel velle? Ovid 
(Metamorph. VII. 19): Aliudque cupido, mens aliud suadet; Video 
meliora proboque, deteriora sequor. Seneca (Hippol. verse 604): 
Vos testor .. . hoe quod volo, me nolle. 

So Lactantius also represents a heathen as saying: Volo equidem 
non peccare, sed vincor; indutus enim sum carne fragili. Itaque 
ducor incertus, et pecco non quia volo, sed quia cogor. 

These quotations (for which I am indebted to Prof. Tholuck) 
show how clear and distinct the impression is upon the human mind, 
in all countries, that there is a struggle in the breast between con~ 


332 ROMANS VII. 16, 17. 


science and carnai inclination. They also show how much alike 
men, enlightened or unenlightened by revelation, express themselves 
in relation to the struggle in question. ‘They answer still another 
purpose, viz., to show that language of this nature is used and is to 
be understood in the popular sense, and in this only. 

Ladd only, that 32, is here to be taken in the sense of approve, 
and not in the physiological sense as a mere act of the faculty of 
the will, is sufficiently plain from the fact, that ὃ μισῶ, that which I 
hate, is made the antithesis of ὃ ϑέλω:; and of course this latter must 
be considered as meaning that which I desire, wish, or approve. No 
room is left, then, for objections of a metaphysical or physiological 
nature. 

(16) Εἰ δὲ . . . . καλός, tf then I do that which I do not approve, 
I consent to the law as good ; 1. e., if my reason and conscience dis- 
approve that which I do, then my mward man bears testimony in 
favour of the law, gives assent to the goodness of it. δέ δ" orationi 
continuande inservit.” Σύμφημι, lit. to speak with, to confess, to 
acknowledge. The appeal here in favour of the law is very strong ; 
for even those who habitually violate it, are represented as testifying 
in its favour. In one point of view, this is stronger testimony than 
that of Christians; for if the real enemies themselves of the law feel 
obliged to confess its excellence, we may well expect that the friends 
of the law will do the same; as indeed they of course do. The 
reader will notice, that when the apostle says that he does that which 
he disapproves, he represents the ow ἄνθρωπος, in thus disapproving, 
as giving its testimony in favour (σύμφημι) of what the law decides. 
It is not then the physiological exercise of the will here which is de- 
signated by ϑέλω (for this of course determines the outward actions) : 
but it is the approbation of the reason and conscience, i. ¢., of the 
internal man, which is meant. 

(17) Νυνὶ δὲ... . ἁμαρτία, but now it is no longer I who do this, 
but sin which dwells in me. Νυνί, properly a particle of time, now, 
is also employed (as now in English) very frequently as a mere con- 
tinuative of argument, denoting that what follows is connected with 
and grows out of what goes before. It is as much as to say: ‘ Inthese 
er in such circumstances, the case being as represented, then it fol- 
lows, &e.’ Aé discretive, “ accuratius definit.” The apostle means 
to guard against the possibility of confounding the two selves, which 
hehashere introduced, and to aver strongly that the internal man does 
not participate in approving the course which the carnal passions 


eo -ς- 


ως ae 


ς 


" ROMANS Vil. 17. 333 


pursue, but take sides with the divine law, and continues to give its 
assent to its sanctions, even amid all the predominant opposition of 
the carnal self. For it is plain that two consequences follow from 
the principle asserted in ver. 15; viz., first, that the internal man 
assents to the goodness of the divine law; secondly, that it is not 
reason and conscience which of themselves unperverted lead men to 
sin, but their own carnal desires. The latter sentiment is fully and 
strongly asserted in ver. 17. ’Ey« therefore is the moral self, the 
νοῦς OF ἔσω ἄνθρωπος here; while ἡ ἁμαρτία (here personified) means, 
the sinful passions and affections of men, or the disposition to in- 
dulge them. The distinction here made between the higher morai 
self of reason and conscience, and the lower one of carnal passions 
and appetites, is very striking. In like manner Seneca says: Mens 
cujusque is est quisque, non ea figura que digito monstrari potest ; 
the MIND of a man is HIMSELF, not that part which may be pointed 
out with one’s finger, i. e., not the body. So Augustine: Magis ego 
in eo quod in me approbabam, quam in eo quod in me improbabam, 
Confess. VIII. 5. The higher moral self has the better claim to 
the title of ἐγώ. 

There is some difficulty of rather a serious nature here, as to the 
ἐν ἐμοί in which sin dwells, 2. 6.) reigns or is predominart, or at least 
is an inmate that has great influence. It is either of the two selves 
in and by themselves considered, 2. 6.) the ἄνθρωπος σαρκικός or the éow 
ἄνθρωπος ἢ * Not the first,’ some one may say; ‘for to suppose this, 
would be to suppose that the apostle represents sin as dwelling in 
itself; for what is sin here but the carnal man? Not the second; 
for the ἐσω ἄνθρωπος is opposed to sin and takes sides with the divine 
law, as the whole passage abundantly testifies.’ ‘The ἐμοί then,’ he 
might say, ‘ must.here designate the whole person, and be employed 
in its usual sense. And although this might seem to be plausible, 
at first view, yet as the apostle has personified sin here, the mode of 
expression must be in accordance with this figure of speech. For 
the moment, sin is spoken of as a separate agent, and as dwelling 
and acting in the man who obeys its dictates. But it is in the car- 
nal man, ὃ. ¢., the carnal self in this case, that it dwells. The éow 
ἄνϑρωπος disapproves and condemns what the other self, in which 
sin dwells, approves and practises. Metaphysically examined, it is 
easy to find or make difficulties with this representation ; but surely 
this is not the light in which we are to examine it. It is plainly a 
popular and allegorical mode of representation.—But more must 


334 - ROMANS vil. 18. 


be said in respect to the difficulty before us, in explaining the next 
verse. | . 

_ (18) οἶδα γὰρ . .. ἀγαϑόν. The γάρ here shows that the writer is 
going to say something which will confirm the declaration that he 
has just made, viz., that indwelling sin leads him to thwart the 
promptings of reason and conscience and the commands of God’s 
holy law. This is altogether clear from the conclusion which he 
draws in express words in ver. 20. The intervening matter, then, is 
designed to illustrate and confirm the position just mentioned. First 
of all, therefore, he avers that he is conscious (οἶδα) that no good thing 
dwells in hin, ὃ, 6.9 in his carnal part.— Αγαϑόν, without the article, 
means any guod thing, t. e., any thing morally good, or inclining to 
moral good; for not natural but moral good and evil are here the 
subject of consideration. That σαρκί μου must mean the carnal man, 
and not mere flesh and blood, is evident enough from the nature of 
the case, and from ver. 5, where ἐν τῇ σαρκί surely does not mean flesh 
physiologically considered. 

Τὸ γὰρ ϑέλειν, παράκειταί μοι, for to will is present with me, t. 6.715 mM 
my power, is accessible to me, is in readiness, is what I can readily 
and easily come at or accomplish ; for such is the meaning which 
παράκειταί μοι conveys. ‘The γάρ here is again causal, i. e., it tro- 
duces a reason or proof of the fact, that no good dwells in the car- 
nal man, and that he is conscious of this; for experience tells him, 
that while the inner man, the reason and conscience, approves of 
and consents to that which is good, the carnal man has no power or 
inclination or readiness to accomplish it. As to ody εὑρίσκω, I do not 
Jind, it is plainly an elliptical expression. The complement here 
would seem to be thus: Οὐχ, εὑρίσκω [ παρακείμενόν μοι], ὦ. ὁ.. | do not 
find it in my power. But not metaphysical nicety of expression is 
here intended. ‘The writer evidently means to say, that the carnal 


part is altogether the predominant self; just in the same manner as - 


he says, that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit 
of God .... neither can he know them.” So again: “The carnal 
mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God 
nor indeed can it be,” Rom. viii. 7. As σαρκικός, t. 6.7) as swayed and 
directed by carnal desires and affections, the sinner finds no power 
to do good. The assertion of the apostle does not respect the ability 
of men in a mere psychological or physiological point of view, with 
simple reference to the powers and attributes of their nature as men; 
but it respects them as σαρκιχοί, as ἐν σαρκί, and as acting agreeably to 


i i στ Υο“ο“ 


ROMANS Vil. 19—21. 335 


this predominating part of themselves. So long as they are in this 
state of servitude, and under such masters, they cannot serve another 
master. But this does not decide that they have no power, in any 
sense of this word, to quit the service of a bad master, and go over 
to a good one. 

(19)0ὺ γὰρ δ'ϑέλω x τ. A. appears to be a repetition of verse 15. 
It is so as to substance; but still ‘it is not designed to be merely a 
repetition. First, the form is a little varied; for here we have éya- 


θόν and κακόν. But secondly, the sentence here commences with a 


γάρ confirmantis, and it appears to be designed to confirm the pre- 
ceding declaration. Whatis it which shows that my reason and 
conscience approve that which is good, and that I find myself unable 
or indisposed to effect it? Itis this, viz., that I in fact leave undone 
the good which I approve, and do the evil which I disapprove. 

(20) Εἰ dx. 7.4. Here δέ marks the continuation of the discourse, 
while it is discretive as to the matter to be added. In effect this 
verse is a conclusion drawn from the matter suggested in vers. 18, 
19, serving to confirm the position in verse 17; for a part of verse 
19 is repeated here, and also the latter part of the sentence in verse 
17. The form is hypothetical; which is a favourite mode of Paul 
in making out conclusions. The amount of it is thus: ‘If what I 
have said in verses 18, 19, be true [and clearly it is], then what I 
nave affirmed in verse 17 must be true.’ 

Οὐ ϑέλω is related, as before, to the internal moral man; and τοῦτο 
ποιῶ to the carnal man. So the οὐκέτι ἐγὼ κατεργάζομαι refers to the 
former, and the ἐν ἐμοί to the latter. 

(21) Next follows a general deduction from the preceding repre- 
sentations, of which ἄρα, then, therefore, is the sign. 

The grammatical construction of the verse is difficult, and has been 
a matter of contest among critics. Only two methods of explanation 
seem to me worth discussing. (a) ‘I find τὸν νόμον, a law or consti- 
tution, viz., of my nature, that when I would do good, evil is near at 
hand,” So Calvin, Venema, Limborch, Michaelis, Bolten, Ammon, 
&e. It is charged as a difficulty upon this mode of interpretation, 
that the article in τὸν νόμον cannot well be accounted for; for νόμον in 
verse 23 has it not. But this objection has little weight, for νόμος in 
verse 21 is surely a particular and specific νόμος; but in verse 23, 
τὸν ἕτερον νόμον (2. 6.7) adding the article) would give a sense which the 
writer does not intend, for he means here only to say that there is 
another law, 7. ¢., some other law, in opposition to the law of his mind. 


336 ROMANS VII. 22. 


Ἔν 707 μέλεσι does indeed specificate the νόμος in question ; but in such 
a case the article may be either inserted or omitted. A comparison 
moreover of verse 21 with verse 23 seems to render it quite plain, 
that τὸν νόμον in the former is the same as the ἕτερον νόμον in the latter. 
I take the meaning of the writer to be, that he finds it to be a cus- 
tom or law with him, resulting from his carnal nature, that when his 
reason and conscience decide in favour of doing good, evil comes in 
and prevents it; ὃ, ¢., his carnal affections and desires interpose and 
hinder his doing good; in other words, he finds the doing of evil so 
habitual with himself, that he must regard it as a controlling law of 
his carnal nature. 

(ὁ) The second method puts a comma after ἄρα, and construes the 
intermediate clause thus: ᾿Εμοὶ σῷ ϑέλοντι ποιεῖν τὸν νόμον, [se. rors | rb 
κωλόν; thus making τὸ καλόν a synonyme with τὸν νόμον, and supposing 
coz to be virtually repeated before it. So Tholuck, Knapp, et al 
This explanation is a possible one; but I can hardly bring myself to 
feel that it is probable. In sense it does not differ materially from 
the other; and therefore it offers no special inducement to adopt it. 

As to the method of interpretation adopted by Glockler and some 
others, which makes νόμον Acc. absolute and renders thus: ‘I find, 
then, as to the law for me wishing to do good, that evil is present, 
&c.,’ this is too forced and arbitrary to commend itself to most men. 

᾿Εμοὶ τὸ κακὸν παράκειται, evil is at hand, evil is near or in readiness. 
The meaning here is, as verse 23 shows, that evil stands ready to 
usurp the place of good, and does in fact usurpit. This last clause, 
beginning with ὅτι, &e., is epexegetical of τὸν νόμον. That νόμος in 
this case does not mean the Mosaic law (as Reiche maintains), seems 
to me quite certain from the two different senses given to νόμος in 
verse 23, , 

(22) Συνήδομαι γὰρ .. « . ἄνθρωπον, for I delight in the law of God, 
as it respects the internal man. Ψάρ illustrantis. The sentiment 
is, for substance, the same as in verses 15—17; but the costume in 
which it appears, is diverse. That the sentiment, moreover, is epexe- 
getical of verse 21, is quite plain. Hence the γάρ with which it is 
introduced. ) 

In regard to the words ; συνήδομαι here corresponds to σύμφημι in 
verse 16; and éow ἄνθρωπον, here, corresponds to ἐγώ in verse 17. If 
any one is disposed to urge here the strength of the expression συνή- 
δομαι τῷ νόμῳ, as being inconsistent with an unregenerate state, he 
will do well to look back on ver. 14, and ask, whether the expression 


EE ee lee ροὸτορο΄- 


c 


ROMANS Vil. 23. 337 


there, on the other side, is not still stronger. The truth is, in a con- 
trast like this, where the mind of the writer is wrought up toa high 
pitch of feeling, the mere forms of expression cannot in themselves 
go very far toward establishing any principle of doctrine. It is to _ 
the object at which the writer is aiming, that we must look; and this 
object has been already brought to view. But if any one insists on 
urging the form of expression, I must ask him first to construe ver. 
14 by the rule which he himself here adopts; and then to compare 
Mark vi. 20 ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουε, 7. 6.. Herod heard John ἡδέως ; John v. 
35. Matt. xiii. 20. John 11. 283—25. Acts vil. 13, comp. ver. 20— 
23. Isa. lviii. 2, where it is said of the wicked, that “ they delight to 
know my ways,” and “they take delight in approaching to God.” 
Comp. also 2 K. xxi. 27—29. 1 John iii. 9. Ps. cxix. ὃ. Many other 
passages of the like tenor could be adduced, in order to show that a 
qualified sense is to be put on such expressions. Above all, John xv. 
22—24. Matt. vi. 24. Luke xvi. 13 and xiv. 26, show that very 
strong expressions of this kind are to be modified according to the 
nature of the case which is under consideration. : 

With such examples before us, and with the whole context (at 
least so it plainly appears to me) to remind us of the necessity of tak- 
ing συνήδομαι in a qualified sense, I cannot hesitate to say, that ver. 
22 only expresses in a more intense form and with more feeling, what 
is simply expressed in ver. 16, σύμφημι τῷ νόμῳ. The approbation, 
complacency (so to speak), which reason and conscience yield to the 
divine law as holy and good, is the truth intended to be expressed. 
It is strongly expressed indeed; but not more so than in the cases 
to which the reader is referred above, and about the exegesis of which 
there can be no disagreement. In fact the very next verse shows 
that the apostle cannot here be understood to mean the pleasure 
which a regenerate and filial spirit takes in the divine law; for this, 
as chap. viii. 1—17 most clearly shows, would lead the person who 
might possess it to “ walk after the Spirit” and not “after the flesh ;” 
while here, the very individual who “ delights in the law of God after 
the inner man,” is at the same time represented as being under the 
actual dominion of the law of sin and death, and led to destruction 
by it. Is this the real state of a child of God? Comp. viii. 9—14. 

(23) Βλέπω δὲ. . . « μου, but 1 perceive another law in my mem- 
bers, warring against the law of my mind. δέ adversative or dis- 
junctive; ἃ. e., notwithstanding my reason and conscience strongly 
approve of the divine law, yet I do not obey it; for there is another 

Υ 


338 ROMANS Vu. 24. 


law directly opposed to it, viz., the law dictated by my carnal passions 
and desires.—Néuo; must of course mean something here which is 
different from law in the sense of precepts. It must have a kind of 
figurative or secondary sense, kindred to the meaning which we of- 
ten give it, in speaking of the laws of nature, the laws of fluids, the 
laws of organized or animal bodies, &c. ‘A predominating tenden- 
cy; seems to be clearly the meaning of νόμος here; and as to μέλεσι 
it is only another designation of cua, σάρξ, or ἄνθρωπος σαρκικός ; COMP. 
ver. 5. The ground of employing νόμος, in this case, is paronomasia ; 
for it stands at the offset to another kind of νόμος mentioned in the 
preceding clause.—As to νοός (Gen. of νοῦς), it evidently means the 
same thing as the éow ἄνθρωπος above.—This law not only wars against 
the law of the inner man, but actually overcomes 10--αὐχμαλωτίζοντά 
foe. . . « μου, lit. making me a captive to the law of sin which is in 
my members, i. e., reducing me to entire subjection unto, placing me 
altogether at the disposal of, the law of sin or carnal self. αὐχμα- 
AwriCovrc comes from αἰχμή a spear and ἁλόω to take, seize upon. It 
is a word of the later Greek, but formed in a regular way. 
Captives taken in war were put to death, or kept or sold as slaves, 
at the pleasure of the victor. The meaning therefore is, that the 
law of sin had entire rule or control, notwithstanding the inner 
man decided against it. And can such be the habitual state of any 
real Christian ? 

If the reader is in any measure perplexed with the question, How 
could the other law in his members bring him into captivity to the 
law of sin, when the law of sin, 7. 6.5 a predominating sinful propensi- 
ty is the very thing designated by both expressions? ‘The obvious 
answer is, that here, as in vers. 17, 20, sin is personified, and the 
carnal man is represented as being ruled over or subdued and made 
captive by it. The difficulty is merely of a rhetorical nature, and 
belongs only to the mode of representation. ‘To scan this by our 
metaphysical philosophy, would be altogether out of place. 

(24) Ταλαΐπωρος . , . . τούτου, Wretched man that Tam! Wha 
shall deliver me from the body which occasions this death or condem- 
nation? No wonder that the sinner, whose conscience has been 
awakened by the law of God, and who has been brought by bitter 
experience to see that all which reason and conscience do for him 
proves ineffectual as to the actual control of his lusts and passions— 
no wonder that he should be constrained, in view of the dreadful 
condemnation which seems to await him, to exclaim, “ Wretched man 


ROMANS VI. 25. 339 


that Iam!? Well may he express a wish, too, for deliverance from 
the predominating power of his bodily carnal lusts and inclinations; 
which, in spite of all the remonstrances that his awakened conscience 
makes, continue to expose him to the curse of the divine law, yea 
to its aggravated penalty. | 

Τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Savdérou τούτου 15 construed by some as being equiva- 
lent to cia ϑνητόν, 2. 6.. frail, dying body. The sentiment would then 
be: ‘Oh, that I might die, or be liberated from this mortal body!” 
This would, in the connection here presented, be the language of 
despair; like that of Job when in deep distress, iii, 3—11. x. 18. 
But although this is a possible sense, it does not seem to be a probable 
one; as the comparison of it with chap. viii. 2 shows. Σῶμα I under- 
stand here (so not unfrequently elsewhere) as equivalent to σάρξ, 
ἃ, 6... as designating the seat of carnal desires. In such a sense σάρξ 
stands opposed to σνεῦμα, in John 111. 6. Rom. viii. 9, 5, 6. Θανάτου 
is the Genitive of effect, as grammarians say, 7. 6.. it is a Genitive 
which marks or designates the effect produced by σῶμα ; and this 
latter word designates the agent, viz, carnal desire in natural men, 
which leads to death or condemnation ; comp. vili.6. Comp. ver. 13, 
where ἁμαρτία 15 said to work death ; which sin is only a personifica- 
tion of the carnal appetites, and dwells in the carnal man ; see verses 
17, 20, and comp. ver. 18. So here it is intimated of the bod), 
which is the abode of this ἁμαρτία, that it is the cause of death. 

(25) Εὐχαριστῶ... ... ἡμῶν, 1 thank God, through Jesus Christ, our 
Lord, viz., that there is deliverance ; an exclamation from sympathy 
for the guilty and wretched sufferer, who had just been described. 
It should be read as in a parenthesis ; for to parenthesis it clearly 
belongs, inasmuch as it breaks in altogether upon the thread of dis- 
course, and is simply an anticipation of what is about to follow in 
chap. vii. Reiche holds the whole clause to be merely a gloss from 
the margin, which has crept into the text, and disturbs and deforms 
it. But to resort to this whenever we meet with any special dif_i- 
eulty of explanation, does not seem to be a safe principle of criticism. 

"Aga oly... . ἁμαρτίας, wherefore I the same person serve with the 
mind the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. A summary 
of the whole preceding representation, as ἄρα οὖν denotes, in respect 
to the contest which he had been deseribing. The sum of all is: 
‘While my mind, 7. e., reason and conscience, takes part with the law 


_ of God and approves its sanctions, my carnal part obtains the actual 


predominance, and bringsme into a state of condemnation and ruin.’ 


340 ROMANS VIT. 25. 


Why should the apostle prefer νοῦς here and in ver. 23, to σνεῦμα the 
natural and usual antithesis of σάρξ ἢᾧ The obvious answer seems to 
be, that he especially designs tocharacterize the intellectual, rational, 
and moral ἐγώ of man, as being that part of him which approves the 
law of God.—Adiris ἐγώ, I myself; so designated here, as it would 
seem, in order to distinguish the ἐγώ now introduced (se/f in the usual 
and comprehensive sense), from the ἐγώ carnal and internal which he 
had all along been employing, ¢. e., the two selves which he had been 
representing. ‘The ἐγὼ αὐτός, then, is the same person (as we say), 
who has, while in a law-state, two minds or inclinations in him. I 
do not perceive any need of the difficulties which some commentators 
have made here. 

But what follows from all this? Just what the writer set out to 
prove, viz., (1) That the law of God, which has reason and con- 
science on its side, is not to be accused as being the efficient cause of 
sin; but that the indulgence of the sinner’s own evil passions is the 
direct cause of his guilt and misery. (2) That the law, with all its 
- holiness and justice, and goodness, and even with reason and con- 
science on its side, is unable to control the person who is yet under | 
it, and is destitute of the grace of the gospel. From all this follows 
the grand deduction which the apostle intends to make, viz., that we 
must be “under grace,” in order to subdue our sinful passions and 
desires. In other words: “ Christ is our ἁγιασμός, as well as our 
δικαιοσύνη." 

And now, at the close of this whole representation we may well 
ask: What stronger proof could the apostle produce, than that which 
he has brought forward, in order to show that the law is ineffectual 
as the means of subduing the power of sin and of sanctifying sinners? 
The law with all its terrors and strictness, even when reason and 
conscience are onitsside, cannot deliver 2x rod σώματός τοῦ ϑανάτου τούτου, 
On the contrary, its very restraints are the occasion of the sinner’s 
guilt being aggravated, because his passions are ‘excited by them to 
more vehement opposition. Does not all this fully and satisfactorily 
establish the assertion implied in ver. 5. τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τὰ διὰ 
τοῦ νόμου And yet, with what admirable caution and prudence is the 
whole of this nice and difficult discussion conducted? The law 
stands fully vindicated. Even the sinner himself, who abuses it to 
his own aggravated guilt and ruin, is obliged to concede that it is 
holy, and just, and good. But with all its excellence and glory, with 
all its promises and threatenings, it never-did and never can redeem 


ROMANS vill. 1. 341 


one soul from death, nor “hide a multitude of sins.” Christ is, 
after all, our only and all-sufficient Saviour; his is “ the only name 
given under heaven among men whereby we can be saved.” He is 
* our wisdom, our justification, our sanctification, and our redemp- 
tion.” What then becomes of all the vain and selfish hopes of the 
legalist ? The apostle has scattered them to the winds, and showed . 
that ‘no man can come unto the Father, except by the Son.’ 

That there is, after all, adequate help for the poor perishing sin- 
ner, the apostle next singecite to show. What the law could not 
accomplish, Christ has effected. That control over the carnal pas- 
sions and desires, which no legal penalties and no remonstrances of 
reason and conscience would give to him, the grace of the Holy Spirit 
given through the gospel, does impart. No longer does he live to the 
flesh ; no more does sin have a habitual and supreme control over 
him. Such is the happy state to which the perishing sinner comes, 
by being brought ὑπὸ χάριν ; and this, he has abundant assurance, will 
be a permanent state, ὁ. 6.5 his ‘ grace will be crowned with glory,’ 
Such is the theme of the next chapter; but before we proceed to the 
consideration of it, I must solicit the attention of the reader to some 
additional hints respecting the grounds on which chap. vil. 5—25 
has been interpreted, as having respect to a person who is under the 
law and not under grace. But for these, | must refer him to the 
Exeursus upon this chapter. 


CHAP. VIII. 1—11. 


.In the preceding chapter (verses 7—25), the apostle has illustrated and enforced the proposi- 
tion made in chap. vii. 5, viz., that while in a carnal state, our sinful passions are not only ex- 
ercised, but that they are even rendered more vigorous or energetic by reason of the restraints 
which the divine law puts upon them ; and consequently, that they ‘bring forth fruit unto death.’ 
The law, then, being thus abused by our unholy inclinations and desires, and made the occasion 
of increasing our sin and enhancing our condemnation, can never be the means of our salvation 
or deliverance from that very penalty which itself pronounces on all transgressors. 

The present chapter exhibits the antithesis of all this. It is a commentary upon Vii. 6, or at 
least an enlargement and illustration of the sentiment there exhibited. As verse 6 there is the 
antithesis of verse 5; so here viii. 1—11 is the antithesis of vii. 7—25. 


342 ROMANS VIII. 1. 


(1) ” Aza νῦν, now then, i. e., now agreeably to this, or in accordance 
with what has beensa:d. =” Aga is usually dative, but not always. 
It is so here, at least in part. But it does not stand connected 
with the next preceding sentence. The reader must go back be- 
yond the illustration in vil. 7—25, to vii. 6, and vii. 4, in order to 
find the connection of the ἄρα viv here. The course of the sentiment 
is thus: ‘ Since ye have been absolved from your legal state, 7. ¢., 
since ye have quit your hope of being sanctified and saved by the 
law, and have become united to Christ in order that you may bring 
forth fruit unto God and serve him in newness of spirit, there is no 
condemnation to you in your present state.’ This of course implies 
that there would have been condemnation to them, had they re- 
mained under the law. 

Οὐδὲν. . . . κατάκριμα here means, of course, no condemnation 
which is to be carried into execution, no penalty actually to be in- 
flicted. The gospel condemns all sin either in believers or others, 
with even more strictness than the law (see Matt. v.) ; but under it 
a way of pardon is provided, by which the condemned may obtain 
remission of the penalty that they have incurred. 

The reason why the apostle here mentions the subject of condem- 
nation is, because he had just called the attention of the reader to it, 
by the exclamation: Τίς με ῥύσεται ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Javdrou τούτου; Be- 
sides, sin and condemnation are inseparably connected; and hence it 
is, that in verse 2 the apostle speaks of “ deliverance from sin and 
death” by the power and grace of the gespel. The subject of death 
or condemnation is, however, merely secondary here; for chaps. 
i.—y. fully treat of this. It is sanctification, and not justification 
which, as has been repeatedly remarked, is ihe main subject of dis- 
cussion here. ‘This is made quite plain by verse 3, seq. 

Τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾽Τησοῦ, i. e., to those who are truly and spiritually 
united to Christ; comp. 2 Cor. v. 17. Rom. xvi. 7—11. Phil. i. 1. 
1 Cor. i. 2. Erasmus rightly : Qui in Christo insiti sunt. The 
ground of this idiom, is the spiritual union which exists between 
the Head of the church and its members; comp. Eph. vy. 30. 1 Cor. 
vi. 15. xii. 27. Eph. iv. 15, 16. John xvii. 11, 21, 23, xiv. 20. 
1 John iv. 13. iii. 24. 

Μὴ χατὰ ... . πνεῦμα is marked by Knapp as spurious, and is 
omitted by Mill, Semler, Bengel, Griesbach, Vater, Lachmann, and 
Riickert. Many critics regard it as being spurious. It is omitted 
in manuscripts C., D., Ἐς, G.; also in many versions and fathers. 


ROMANS VIII. 2. 342 


Only the last clause, however, 7. ὁ) ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα, is omitted in 
manuscripts A., B.; alsoin the Vulgate, Syriac, and Armenian ver- 
sions; likewise in Basil, Chrysostom, and many of the fathers It 
is a matter of little or no importance whether the words are received 
or rejected, either in whole or in part, so far as the sense of the whole 
passage is concerned. Besides, the very same words occur again in 
verse 4; which is the reason why many critics have supposed that 
they are not genuine here. But this argument cannot be of much 
weight; or if it is, then we may as well prove the spuriousness of 
verse 4 by assuming that it 15. 8 mere repetition of this, as the spuri- 
ousness of this by assuming.it to be a repetition of verse’'4. On the 
whole it is quite clear, that there exists, in the connection of the dis- 
course here, no imperious reason for rejecting the clause in question. 
Only the external evidence makes the genuineness of it doubtful. 

If the clause be retained, the sense of it is: ‘ Who do not live in 
such a manner as to gratify the desircs of the flesh, but walk in such 
a manner as accords with the desires which the spirit imparts.’ The 
whole clause isto be regarded as an epexegesis, added in order to 
characterize those who are in Christ Jesus. 

(2) ‘O νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος x. r. A. The word νόμος here will be best 
understood by referring back to vii. 21, 23, 25, where, in νόμον, ἕσερον 
νόμον, and νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας, the word means dictate (as we say), dominatio, 
JUSSUM, preceptum. As νόμος ἁμαρτίας Means dictate of Sin, SO νόμος Πνεύ- 
paros (the opposite of νόμος ἁμαρτίας) must mean dictate of the Spirit, 
. é., the influences of the Spirit which direct or control our inclination. 

Πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, of the Spirit of life in Christ 
Jesus, i. 6.) of the Spirit which imparts true, quickening, Christian 
influence or a Christian disposition; comp. as to the influences of the 
Spirit, verses 9, 11 below; also 1 Cor. ii. 10, 12, xu. 4, 7, 11, 18. 
That something different from the natural powers or the natural 
conscience of men is meant, seems to be quite plain, from comparing 
the antithesis here with what is asserted of the natural conscience in 
vii. 15—25. In this latter passage, we see how inefficacious natural 
conscience is to control the passions and to free the sinner from the 
condemning sentence of God’s holy law. I take ζωῆς to be abstract 
for concrete, 7. ¢.,a noun designating quality and holding the place of 
an adjective; the meaning of which is life-giving, quickening. ᾿Ἔ! 
Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ means the same as in verse 1. The sentiment then is 
this; ‘The dictate of or the inclination imparted by the Spirit, who 
quickens those that once were dead in trespasses and sins, and gives 


344 ROMANS VIII. 3. 


them the predominant inclination to live in Christ.” To construe 
νόμος here as meaning rule, precept, viz., of the gospel, as many have 
done, is to lose sight of the antithesis to νόμος ἁμαρτίας, which is 
evidently intended. Much controversy has been excited by this 
verse, viz., whether law means rule, prescription, inclination, or the 
new spiritual economy. To me it seems so plain, that νόμος τοῦ 
πνεύματος 18 here used in opposition to the ἕτερον νόμον ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι in 
vii. 23 above, that I do not see any occasion for controversy. The 
law of the new man which results from the influences of the Spirit 
who imparts life in Christ Jesus or true Christian life, is a plain and 
obvious sense, and one which accords with Christian experience. 

This influence of the Spirit, Paul goes on to say, frees them from 
the law of sin and [from] death. Here (as this is the antithesis of 
the former clause of the verse), the law of sin means the dictate 
[jussum or impetus] of sin, which leads to death or condemnation. 
To suppose ἀπό to be repeated or implied before τοῦ ϑανάτου, seems to 
be the most correct method of explaining the phrases. The law, i. e., 
dictate of death would hardly make a tolerable sense here. Yet, if 
any one prefers, he may construe it thus: ‘ The law, viz., impetus, 
which leads to sin and condemnation.’ The apostle does not mean 
to say, that Christians who are under the influences of ‘ the Spirit of 
life in Christ Jesus,’ are perfectly sinless; but they are freed from 
the predominating power of sinful inclinations, such as is described 
in the preceding chapter, verses 7—23, and such as subjects them to 
the penalty of the divine law. More than this need not be attached 
to his words; and more than this cannot properly be attached to 
them, when the antithesis in the preceding chapter is taken into the 
account, or when facts themselves are regarded. 
“ (3) Td γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου, for that which the law could not effect, 
or that which-was impossible for the law, viz., that which the law of 
works could not effect or accomplish. What that is, is designated by 
the sequel, viz., the subjugation of sin or the:sinful affections and 
lusts of men, the slaying of the carnal man. ‘This, as the preceding 
chapter abundantly shows, could not be effected by the law; which 
served rather to irritate and rouse up the carnal man than to subju- 
gate and destroy him. Τάρ is prefixed to a clause introduced for the 
sake of illustration or confirmation. 

"Ey ᾧ joriver διὰ τῆς σαρκός, because it was weak through the: flesh, 
i ¢., because, through the strength of our carnal ineliaaeiane and 
desires, it was unable to regulate our liyes so that'we should ke.per 


ROMANS VIII. 3. | 345 


fect or entirely free from sin ; comp. vii. 14---2ὅ, Σάρξ here, as often 
elsewhere, designates carnal appetites or inclinations. 

What the law of works could not effect, ὁ Θεὸς... . ἁμαρτίας, God 
sending his own Son in the likeness of our sinful flesh, i. e., God, 
sending his Son, clothed with a body like that of corrupt and sinful 
men or having a nature like to theirs [did accomplish]. That some 
verb is here implied, the nature of the sentence seems necessarily to 
indicate. ᾿Ἑποίησε, therefore, or some verb of an equivalent meaning, 
should be supplied. Another method of solving the difficulty here 
~ is to translate thus: ‘ As to the impossibility of the law, &e But 
the idea in this case seems to be left in an imperfect state. The 
simple meaning is : ‘ What the law could not accomplish, God by the 
mission of his Son did accomplish.’ As to ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, 
comp. Johni. 14. Rom.i.3. Heb. 11. 14, 17. iv. 15. Phil. ii. 7. 
Gal. iv. 4. 1 John iv. 2,3. 1 Tim. i. 16. The phrase ἐν ὁμοιώ- 
war: does not mean, as the Docetz construed it, merely an apparent 
likeness of human nature and not a real one; for in Heb. ii. 17, 
Christ is said ὁμοιωθῆναι κατὰ πάντα, In respect to his brethren, ὦ, e., 
men. ‘That Jesus possessed a nature really and truly like our own, 
is established beyond all doubt by the passages above quoted, and 
others of the like tenor. Equally certain isit, that although he took 
on him the dékeness of sinful flesh, yet he did not on that account 
become a sinner; see Heb.iv.15. 2 Cor. v.21. Heb. vii. 26. The 
amount therefore of the expression before us, is, that Christ partici- 
pated in our common nature. He took on him such a physical 
nature as sinful men possess; and with this also he assumed those 
powers, faculties, and susceptibilities, which belong to human nature 
as consisting of soul and body. In other words, all the pura naturalia 
necessary to coastitute a real and proper man, belonging to him. 
Accordingly the apostle represents him as having the sympathies of 
our nature, and as feeling the power of temptation in like manner 
with us, although without sin; Heb. iv. 15. It is not susceptibility 
of being excited by sinful objects, then, which makes men sinners, 
but it is the yielding to this excitement. This Jesus did not. 

Καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας, 1. Cry καὶ προσφορᾷ περὶ ἁμαρτίας, and by an offering 
for sin. “Δμαρτία itself, in Hebrew-Greek, often corresponds to 
OND sin-offering. The phrase περὶ ἁμαρτίας may be taken here as 
elliptical. The full form would be (as above) προσφορᾷ περὶ ἁμαρτίας, 
by an offering for sin; but the elliptical phrase, περὶ ἀμαθία is fre- 
quently used πριν of the entire one; comp. Heb. 


346 ROMANS VIII. 3. 


6. Lev. iv. 3. Num. viii. 8. Ps. xxxix. 6(Sept.) There can be 
no serious difficulty in regard to such an ellipsis. Moreover, that 
ἁμαρτία alone is sometimes used for sin-offering (MNT), seems to be 
altogether probable from 2 Cor. v. 21, ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησε; also from 
Heb. ix. 28, χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. In this way περὶ ἁμαρτίας would be con- 
strued as designating the way or means by which Christ condemned 
or destroyed sin, viz., by giving himself an offering for sin, and so 
procuring sanctifying grace for sinners. 

But although I adopted this interpretation in the former edition 
of this work, there seems to be some ground of difficulty im respect 
to the sense of zg. This preposition has, indeed, quite a generic 
meaning, and is capable of designating a considerable number of 
specific relations. ‘The general notion of it, when used before the 
Genitive, as here, is to express the relation toward an object (which 
the Genitive of the noun designates) of some action or active energy, 
which is designated by a verb standing in connection with it. It 
may mean, therefore, in respect to, on account of, for the sake of, for, 
concerning, respecting, because of, from or out of, and (ina local 
sense) around, about, near by. In significations so multiform and 
generic as these, it is easy to perceive that the latitude in which περί 
is used must be very great. But we will confine our inquiries to its 
usage in connection with expiations, sacrifices, &c., in the New 
Testament; which obviously has a direct bearing on the present case. 
Mark 1. 44, ‘ Offer what is commanded, περὶ τοῦ καϑαρισμοῦ,᾽ t. 6.5) for 
the sake of accomplishing or effecting the requisite legal purifica- 
tion; so also in Luke y. 14, In Luke ii. 27, the parents of Jesus 
are represented as going into the temple ‘ to do as the law required, 
i. €., to present oblation, περὶ αὐτοῦ, in his behalf, on his account, for 
him. So in Heb. v. 3, ‘offerings veg) τοῦ λαοῦ, fur the people, 1. é., ἴῃ 
their behalf’? But when ἁμαρτία tollows zegi, there must of neces- 
sity be a different shade of sense. Thus in Heb. x. 18 προσφορὰ 
περὶ ἁμαρτίας, Heb. x. 20 ϑυσία περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν, Heb. x. 6, 8 περι ἁμαρτίας 
(elliptically for προσφορὰ περὶ ἁμαρτίας, comp. v. 18), 1 Peter ii. 18 
περὶ ἁμαρτίας trade, 1 John 11, 2. iv. 10 ἱλασμὸς περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, it 
must be understood that the sacrifice was occasioned by sin, and 
that it is offered in relation to sin, 7. ¢., in order to make atone- 
ment for it. The idea that sin occasioned the sacrifice, or the 
suffering of Christ (1 Pet. iii. 18), or the propitiatory act (ὑλασμόςρ), 
lies plainly upon the surface of the phraseology. or sin, 7. @, on 
account of sin, because of sin, we must in such cases translate περὶ 


᾿ 
ε νι «(ἀν 


; 


ROMANS VIII. 3. 947 


ἁμαρτίας; and it is quite plain, that the design of ἃ writer who uses 
such an expression, is to show that the effects or evil consequences of 


sin are to be removed by sacrifice or suffering or a propitiatory act on 


account of it. 

The way is now open to construe περὶ ἁμαρτίας in the verse before 
us. I would connect it mentally with πέμψας τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Υἱόν, and make 
two affirmations of the apostle, viz., (a) God sent his Son in the like- 
ness of men, %. ¢., with the nature of those whom he was to redeem. 
(ὁ) God sent hiss καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας, also on account of sin, t. e., to 
‘make atonement for it, to prevent its evil effects. If one should aie 
‘why the prepositions are changed and with them the mode of con- 
struction, ἐν being first employed and then zeg/;’ the simple and satis- 
factory answer is, that the nature of the sentiment required it, and 
such changes in construction are frequent in the writings of Paul. 
The reason why the apostle employs περὶ ἁμαρτίας here, rather than 
some other equivalent expression, seems plainly to be of a paronoma- 
stac nature, 7. 6.) because he had just said, ὁμοιώμωτι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας. 
And for a like reason, and in reference to the two last words of this 
clause, he says immediately afterwards, κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ 
σαρκί, t. 6.0 the sin already mentioned (the article before ἁμαρτίαν is 
used here, but not before), and the sin which has its seat in the 
flesh, 7. ¢., in our carnal passions and appetites, τῷ σαρκί (with the 
article) being here employed. The whole phraseology is paranoma- 
δίας in a peculiar degree. 

Karéxove . . . . σωρκί, condemned sin in the flesh, 7. e., (as many 
explain) condemned the sin which fleshly appetites occasion, con- 
demned our carnal appetites and desires. The word κατέκρινε has 
occasioned much difficulty among critics. The reason why it is em- 
ployed here, seems to be, that the writer had just used χατάκχκριμα in 
verse 1. The antithesis stands thus: ‘There is now no χατάχριμα 
for Christians; but there is a χασάχριμα of their carnal appetites and 
desires;’ 7. e., Christians are indeed delivered from the penalty of 
death, but their sinful lusts are condemned to death or slain, in con- 
sequence of the provision made by Jesus Christ for their deliverance. 
This antithesis seems to have escaped the notice of most commenta- 
tors; and thus much perplexity has attended the exegesis of xaréxgue, 
In such a paronomasiac use of words, we are not to feel obliged to 
remain by the mere literal and usual meaning, but to give the lati- 
tude which the nature of the connection requires. The meaning of 
the apostle evidently is, that instead of being condemned themselves, 


348 ROMANS VIIL. 4. 


Christians experience, through the grace of Christ, the condemnation 
of the sin within them which works theirruin. The very same idea 
is substantially taught here, which is insisted on at large in chap. vi. 
2—-11, where the old man is represented as crucified, mortified, &c. 
The difference of language is merely accidental, being occasioned by 
paronomasia; the expected consequence of κατέχρινε ἁμαρτίαν here is 
plainly that Christians should yield obedience to the divine precepts; 
iva τὸ δικαίωμα x. τ. λ., verse 4. And so according to chap. vi. 11 566.» 
he whose old man is crucified lives henceforth to God. Such of 
course is the consequence of the carnal affections being put to death, 
or (to use the language of our text) condemned, i. ¢., to death,) xar- 
éxewe not ἔκρινε). All this is effected by the mission of Christ, who 
came to save his people from the power as well as from the penalty 
of sin. 

The words ἐν σαρκί here may be joined with ἁμαρτίαν, and so indi- 
cate what Paul has so often declared in the preceding context, viz., 
that sin is occasioned by jleshly appetites and desires, or that the car- 
nal man is a sinful one; and so the majority of expositors understand 
it. In such a case ¢ ἣν ἐν σαρκί would be the usual and full mode of 
expression; but the article is often omitted without any change of 
the sense; New Test. Gramm. ὃ 92. 6. But ἐν σαρκί may be joined 
in sense with xaréxgive, and so indicate the manner or means in or by 
which Christ condemned sin or put to death the sinful principle, viz. 
that he did so by assuming our fleshly nature {ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς 
ἁμαρτίας). Reiche and others prefer this construction as the more 
apposite and congruous. Ljither sense is good, and allowed by the 
idiom of the apostle. 

The course of thought, which issomewhat obscured by the arrange- 
ment of the words, may be made plain to the reader by a somewhat 
different position of some parts of the’sentence. J. g., ‘ God sent his 
own Son, in the likeness of men and on account of their sins, and 
destroyed the power of sin in their carnal nature, (which the law 
could not possibly effect because it was bereaved of its energy through 
the strength of the carnal affections), in order that the precepts of 
the law which demands holiness of life, might be obeyed by those who 
walk according to the dictates of his spirit. In this way the whole 
is freed from embarrassment. 

(4) Τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου, the precept of the law. So in the Septu- 
agint daiwa is used to translate Ph, DBD, and MYP, πληρωθῇ ἐν 
ἡμῖν, might be accomplished or done by us; viz. that we might be 


ROMANS ΥὙΠ|. 5, 6. 549 


obedient to divine precepts requiring holiness of life, and no longer 
devoted to the lusts of the cei, who are influenced and guided by 
the Spirit. 

Here then we have a view of the end which is accomplished by 
the death of Christ ; not only the end, but one great end, viz., the 
sanctification of believers. This is one of the passages, which shows 
the whole drift of the discourse in chap. vii. and viii. 1—11. Ἔν ἡμῦ 
may be rendered dy us or in us. In the latter case it would desig- 
nate the internal spiritual influence of the death of Christ upon be- 
lievers, inasmuch as it causes-a conformity of spirit or heart to him; 
and this is the most probable meaning. 

Some understand this verse as having respect to an imputed and 
vicarious fulfilling of the law, or the imputation of Christ’s obedience 
to believers. But the context shows plainly, that their actual sanc- 
tification is here the subject of discussion; it is the mortification or 
death of sin in them, which he is treating of. 

(5) Οἱ γὰρ . . . .- φρονοῦσιν, for they who are in a carnal state, have 
regard to carnal things. Yée illustrantis. Κατὰ σάρκα is here used, 
because the same phrase stands in the preceding verse. Εἶναι κατὰ 
σάρκα, to be according to the flesh, does not differ in sense from εἶναι 
σαρκικοί, or from ἐν σωρκὶ εἶναι, when taken in the figurative sense. The 
meaning plainly is, ‘to act in accordance with carnal desires and 
affections.’ 

Οἱ 62... ανεύματος, but they who are in a spiritual state, have 
regard to spiritual things. Comp. verses 2 and 9—1l1. οἱ xara 
xvevwa being the antithesis of of κατὰ σάρκα, is easily understood. 

(6) Td γὰρ... ϑάνατος, for the carnal mind is death. Yée illus- 
trantis again, where we might naturally expect 62 However, I take 
verse 6 to be co-ordinate with verse 5, and the γάρ here to indicate 
an illustration of what is said in verse 4. So Riickert. The con- 
nection seems to be thus: ‘The precepts of the law are obeyed by 
those who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit ; but earnal 
men will not give heed to spiritual things, and their pursuits lead to 
death ; while the spiritual mind, 7. e., a mind conformed to the dic- 
tates of the Spirit, stands connected with life and peace; or life and 
peace, 2. 6.5 eternal happiness, are the consequence or fruits of it.’ 
This is not direct confirmation of what is asserted in verse 4, but is 
an illustration of the condition there described, by showing its con- 
nections ard results, and also those of the opposite condition. 


850 ROMANS VIII. 7 


Φρόνημα σαρκός Means a mind or will conformed to carnal passions 
and appetites. 

(7) Next follows the ground or reason why this is and will be so. 
Διότι... εἰς Θεόν, bebiilee the carnal mind is enmity toward God, 1. 6.» 
is inimical to God, or (in plain terms) hates him, dislikes his pre- 
cepts, his character, and his ways. So the sequel, τῷ γὰρ x. τ. A 
The abstract noun ἔχθρα, is here used for the adjective ἐχύρά (with 
avcent on the ultimate), inimical, unfriendly. The proof that the 
sentiment just uttered is correct, follows in the next clause. 

Τῷ γὰρ. .. δύναται, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor 
_ indeed can be; i.e., it does not obey the precepts of God’s law, nor 
can it obey them. The very nature of a carnal mind consists in 
gratifying carnal and sinful desires, viz., those desires which the law 
of God prohibits. Of course this mind or disposition, so far as it 
prevails, leads to the very opposite of subjection to God’s law, i. e., 
leads to disobedience. From its very nature this cannot be other- 
wise ; for when it is otherwise, the mind is no longer carnal. 

The first γάρ here, in τῷ γὰρ νόμῳ, is γάρ illustrantis vel conjir- 
mantis, t. 6.5) it stands before a clause designed to illustrate and con- 
firm the preceding declaration. If the carnal mind does not subject 
itself to the law of God, then it must be enmity to him; for his law 
is merely an expression of his will and character. A want of subjec- 
tion then to this law, is a plain indication that the carnal mind dis- 
likes it, 7. 6.) hates it. But why? The fact is plainly asserted; and 
the fact, as plainly, is evidence of what had been before asserted. 
But how shall this fact be accounted for, viz., that the carnal mind 
is not subject to the lawof God? The apostle gives the ground of 
it: οὐδὲ γὰρ δύναται ὑποτάσσεσθαι x. τ. A Here then isa passage on 
which the advocates of metaphysical reasoning with respect to ability 
in men have speculated, and about which they have disputed not a 
little. What is the cannot? One answers: It is a will not; 
another, that it is to be literally understood, without any abatement. 
So Luther, de Servo Arbitrio; and somany others. That the phrase 
stands in the way of Pelagianism, and indeed of all unqualified asser- 
tions of ability in the carnal man; at least, that it may be easily and 
naturally so construed ; it is not difficult to see. After all, however, 
nothing can be farther from correct principles of interpretation, than 
to suppose that the apostle had here any reference in his own mind 
to the psychological metaphysics of the present day. What the 


¢ 


ROMANS ΥΠΙ. 8. 351 


natural and physiological powers of the sinner are, is not here the 
subject of discussion. Thus much the writer appears to say, and no 
more, viz., that the φρύνημα σαρκός is not subject to God’s law, and 
cannot be subject to it. And is not this plainly and obviously true ? 
So far as φρόνημα σαρκός goes, it is directly the opposite of subjection 
in its very nature. ‘“ How,” says Augustine (and much to the 
point), “can snow be warmed? For when it is melted and becomes 
warm, it is no longer snow.” And so it is with the carnal mind. 
Just so long as it exists, and in just such proportion as it exists, it is 
and will be enmity acainst God and disobey his law. But whether 
the sinner who cherishes this φρόνημα σαρκός is not actuated by other 
principles also, and urged by other motives, and possessed of ability 
to turn from his evil ways—ability arising from other sources— 
does not seem to be satisfactorily determined by this expression. 
What Chrysostom says, deserves very serious attention: “ He does 
not affirm that the bad man cannot become a good one; but that, 
while he continues to be bad, he cannot possibly obey God. When 
converted, however, it is easy to be good and to obey God.” So 
much, then, seems to be decided by this passage, viz., that so long 
as this φρόνημα σαρκός is the predominant principle within him, so long 
he will continually disobey the law of God. Such a disposition is 
in itself utterly incompatible with obedience. 

(8) Οἱ δὲ . . .«. δύνανται, those then who are in the flesh, cunnot 
please God. The particle δέ creates some difficulty here. One use 
of it is, to-introduce clauses continuative of the narrative or reason- 
ing, which clauses may add some new circumstance, or may resume 
a declaration before made but nowstated in somewhat different terms, 
&¢c.; comp. 6in Rom. viii. 28. Mark xvi. 8. Acts xxiii. 13. Rom. 
iii. 22. 1 Cor. x. 11. xv. 56. James 11.15. So here of ὃ: ἐν σαρκὶ 
κ. τ. δ. resumes the sentiment contained in τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς ἔχθρα 
% τολ, and repeats it in another form. Moreover, this latter form has 
special reference to vii.:5, 18. 

But who are those that are ἐν cagx/? They are those, “ who are 
not led by the Spirit of God,” comp. verses 9, 13, 14; who follow 
fleshly desires and appetites. In other words, all men who are not 
regenerated or sanctified, who are in a natural state, are ἐν cagxi, 
carnal, and therefore are influenced and guided by their carnal de- 
sires and affections ; comp. John iii. 6. 1 Cor. ii. 14. Eph. ii. 1---8, 
Col. 1, 18. Consequently, as may well be supposed, Θεῷ ἀρέσαι οὐ 
δύνανται they cannot please God ; 7. e., while they live in such a state, 


859 ROMANS VIII. 9. 


and are led on by such carnal desires, they can do nothing which is 
pleasing to God. The οὐ δύνανται here is to be understood in the 
same way as the οὐ δύνανται in the preceding verse. 

(9) The opposite character is now brought into view, in order to 
render the sentiment more striking. ‘Ywes δὲ... . ὑμῖν, you, how- 
ever, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, provided the Spirit of God 
dwells in you. The 62 here is distinctive. If the Spirit of God 
dwells in any one, he cannot be in a carnal state; for the Spirit 
dwells in and guides only those who are the sons of God (verse 14), 
and therefore his friends, verse 17. Such cannot be at enmity with 
God. 

The πνεῦμα Θεοῦ which is here mentioned, is the same as that to 
which the writer has all along referred. In the next verse it is 
called πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ. As to the dwelling of the Spirit in Christians, 
comp. 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17. vi. 19. 2 Cor. vi. 16; and with these texts 
comp. John xvii. 23. xiv. 23—36. 

Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ is the Spirit which Christ imparts, or the Spirit 
which makes us like to Christ. Either sense is good here. ‘The 
first is perhaps the more probable meaning; at least a comparison 
with John xiv. 15—18, 26. xv. 26, would seem to render it so. It 
is remarkable that in this short paragraph (verses 9—11), πνεῦμα 
Χριστοῦ, Χριστός, and τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐγείραντος ᾽Τησοῦν (1.€., πγεῦμα Θεοῦ Πατρός), 
should be exchanged for each other, and plainly stand for one and 
the same thing. Is not this evidence, that the apostle saw and felt 
no inconsisteney in speaking of Christ, and of the Spirit of God or 
of Christ, as in some respects distinct, and yet in others as constitu- 
ting a unity of nature? There seems to me to be an entire simpli- 
city in the modein which Paul has treated this subject; a subject 
which has unhappily been made so complex and intricate, by the 
subtilties of the schools. The simple facts, that Christ and the 
Spirit are divine, are one in nature with God, and yet in some re- 
spect distinct from the Father, seem to be the basis of the apostle’s 
language here and elsewhere; while all speculation on the subject, 
all attempts to make out nice distinctions or metaphysical definitions, 
are entirely neglected. Whenever the time shall come, that Chris- 
tians are content with simple facts relative to this great subject, much 
that has proved to be injurious to the prosperity of religion, will be 
done away. ἢ 

Οὐχ ἔχει, possesseth not; i. 6..) if the Spirit of Chnst does not 
habitually dwell in and influence any one.— Οὐκ ἐστιν αὐτοῦ, he is not 


ROMANS VIII. 10. 350 


his, i. e., he is no Christian, he is not a true disciple or follower of 
Christ. The δέ at the beginning of the clause seems to be continu- 
ative, and therefore may be translated now. If any choose they may 
render it as adversative, but. 

(10) Ei Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, but if Christ be in you, ti. e., if he dwell in you 
by his Spirit, if ye have the Spirit of Christ, if ye are habitually in- 
fluenced by him in your lives and conversation. The δέ here is 
plainly adversative. 

Τὸ μὲν σῶμα .... δικαιοσύνη, the body indeed is mortified on account 
of sin, but the spirit lives on account of righteousness ; a passage about 
which (including ver. 11) critics have been greatly divided. ‘There 
are three methods in which it has been interpreted ; each of which 
must be briefly noticed. _ 

(a) Νεκρόν means spiritually dead (as often elsewhere); and the 
general sentiment will then be: ‘If the Spirit of Christ dwell in you, 
then, although your bodies (iz. 6.7} you) are spiritually dead, that is, 
are still the seat of divers carnal affections and lusts (verse 10), yet 
you shall spiritually live; for the Spirit of him who raised up Jesus 
from the dead will subdue these forbidden affections and desires, and 
gradually make you entirely conformed to his will, ver. 11.’ To this 
effect, Chrysostom, Erasmus, Piscator, Locke, C.Schmid, and others. 

The objection made to this exegesis, is, that in ver. 1 1 the apostle 
speaks of the quickening of those bodies which are ϑνητά; mortal, 
frail, dying; an epithet that seems to be given to our frail, physical 
body as such, and not given to it merely as the corrupt seat of lusts. 
As it does not appear that ϑνητός of itself ever has the same figura- 
tive sense which νεχρός often has, 2. e., morally dead or corrupt; so 
one might be prone to conclude, that ζωοποιήσει in this case does not 
indicate the spiritual vivification which the exegesis already men- 
tioned assigns to it, but rather the restoration of the body to life at 
the period of the resurrection. I shall take farther notice of this 
exegesis in the sequel. ι 

(6) Another class of interpreters explain thus: ‘The body is 
dead in respect to sin, 2. ¢., sin has no more power to excite its evil 
appetites and desires. . The soul has, moreover, the principle of 
spiritual life; and he who raised up Jesus will also give to your 
bodies | viz., at the resurrection], a new principle of spiritual life or 
animation.’ So for substance, Origen, Theodoret, Clarius, Grotius, 
Raphel, Taylor, Melancthon, Bucer, and others. 3 

The objection to this is, that it renders it necessary to construe 

Ζ 


354 ROMANS vir. 10. 


διά before the Accusative as meaning in respect to, in reference to; 
which can hardly be admitted. Moreover it destroys the antithesis 
inver. 10. It renders quite insipid, also, the antithesis between σῶμα 
νεκρόν in ver. 10, and ζωοποιήσει τὰ ϑνητὰ σώματα in ver. 11. 

(c) Another method of interpreting the phrase in question is this: 
‘The body must die [physically] because of sin; but the spiritual 
part lives ; and even the body itself will be made to live at the period 
of the resurrection, 7. ¢., it will be raised up and become like Christ’s 
own glorious body.’ So Tholuck, Flatt, Calvin, Augustine, Beza, 
and others. 

Understood in this way, the passage may be regarded as designed 


to foreclose an objection which would arise in the mind of some 
reader, who might ask: ‘Are all the consequences of sin, then, 
removed by the death of Christ? To this the apostle may be 
viewed as replying in the verse before us: ‘ No, not absolutely and 
entirely all. Natural death still remains. But a glorious resurrec- 
tion will follow this; so that in the end all its consequences will be 
done away.’ 

But there are weighty objections against this mode of interpreta- 
tion. If νεχρόν is to be understood in its literal sense, then of course 
the following ζωή must be understood literally also; and what sense 
would it make to say, that ‘the soul has natural life because of right~ 
eousness,’ when all know that the wicked are as immortal as the 
righteous? But if νεκρόν means dead in the sense of having our car- 
nal passions mortified, then ζωή would of course designate the peace 
and happiness of the soul or spirit. 

The view which I entertain of the passage agrees substantially 
with the first of the above interpretations. I understand σῶμα νεκρόν 
in yer. 10, as not indicating [physical] death; nor yet as meaning 
death in the sense of being dead in trespasses and sins, i. ¢., destitute 
of spiritual life, or in a state of death or condemnation. I take it to 
be used in the same sense as Sévarog in vi. 4, 5; as expressing an idea 
exactly kindred with συνεσταυρώθη and καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 
in vi. 6; the same with ἀποθανών in vi. 7 ; ἀπεθάνομεν in vi. 8; and νεκρούς 
invi.1l. That the writer did connect viii. 10, 11, in his own mind 
with vi. 4—13, appears quite plain from his diction and general 
course of thought. In vi. 12 he calls the body S»rév, just as in viii. 
11; and in the former passage he evidently means to designate by 
it a corporeal, material, perishable body ; which is also the sense, 
for substance, in viii. 11, 


ROMANS vitt. 10. 355 


But all the words above mentioned, in chap. vi., serve merely to 
characterize what we call the mortification [the putting to death] of 
the body, %. ¢., the subduing and mortifying our carnal desires and 
affections, which are cherished by or originate from the body. I 
understand νεχρόν in viii. 10 (as I do νεκρούς in vi. 11), to designate 
this state or condition, viz., a state in which the old man is crucified, 
in which the carnal desires of the body are mortified and subdued. 
This exegesis has, at least, plain analogy on its side. ; 

Interpreted in this way the sentiment of the whole passage would 
run thus: ‘If the Spirit of Christ dwells in any one, his body is 
indeed dead on account of sin, 2. e., the old man is crucified, or he 
undergoes mortification as to his bodily and sinful appetites ; but his 
spirit is rendered happy on account of righteousness, 1. e., because of 
conformity to the requisitions of the gospel. Yea, if the Spirit of 
him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in any man, that 
same Spirit will quicken, 7. ¢., impart life to, his mortal body ;’ in 
other words, he will not suffer it to remain a mere σῶμα νεχρόν, but 
make it an instrument of righteousness (vi. 12, 13, 19), and give it 
a power of being subservient to the glory of God. 

By degrees the Christian “ brings under his body,” and keeps it 
in subjection. At first it is, as it were cruci/ying the old man; but 
in the sequel, the grace of God makes conquest easy and even de- 
lightful. Itis such a quickening of our bodies, a converting of them 
into “ instruments of righteousness,” to which the apostle seems to 
me here to refer. One circumstance appears to be conclusive in 
regard to this exegesis; this is, that the apostle here describes the 
Spirit which “ quickens the bodies” of Christians, as being the Spirit 
which dwells in them, ἐνοικοῦν ἐν byt. Where is the resurrection of 
our physical bodies, at the last day, attributed to the sanctifying 
Spirit in believers? Very different is the statement in Col. ii. 12, 
13. Eph. 1. 19, 20. ii. 5, 6. Rom. vi. 4. It is, then, the Spirit who 
dwells in believers that is to quicken them in the sense which is 
here meant ; and what can this be, except the one designated in 
vi. 12, 13, 19? 

‘The body is often the occasion of sin and sorrow, it is a σῶμα 
Savérov. It requires to be mortified, and crucified. But the Spirit 
of God in believers, by degrees brings them to yield their members 
as instruments of righteousness. Then is the old man, the body of 
sin, dead; and the body itself, like the spirit, is quickened in the ser- 
vice of God. Verse 13 seems clearly to indicate that the present 


356 ROMANS Vit. 11. 


passage is to be thus understood; for there, τὰς πράξεις rod σώματος 
ϑανατοῦτε appeats plainly to convey the same meaning as σῶμα νεκρόν. 
The object of the writer, as I apprehend it, is to show Christians, 
that although mortification and self-denial must be practised in order 
to subjugate carnal desires, yet even here they may expect relief in 
due time. Victory repeated becomes easier. The enemy often 
vanquished, becomes weaker. The Spirit of Christ, in fine, brings 
the believer at last fully and freely to dedicate all that he has and is 
to the service of his Lord and Master; so that no discouragement 
should be felt, because the way is at first rough and difficult. It is 
a path which conducts to life. 

(11) Ei δὲ τὸ... iui. The Spirit of him who raised up Jesus 
from the dead, is the Spirit of God the Father, or the Spirit of God ; 
comp. ver. 9, also Col. 11. 12, 13. Eph. i. 19, 20. ii. 5, 6. Rom. vi. 4. 
Aé here is a continuative ; εἰ 62 tf also, if moreover. Ζωοποιήσει, will 
give life to, will animate, ἃ, e., will make them active instruments. 
Διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν ... . ὑμῖν, ὃ, @, the same Spirit who dwells in you, 
will enable you to quicken the ϑνητὸν σῶμα or σῶμα ϑανάτου, which now 
occasions so much pain and mortification, and to make it a willing 
instrument of righteousness. but if verses 10, 11, be construed of 
literal death and life, then all the promise that is made to Christians 
here would be, that their bodies shall be raised up at the last day ; 
and the inference would seem to be, that the wicked will not be 
raised up; which we know to be contrary to the doctrine of Paul 
and other N. Test. writers. Such an exegesis, then, although it is 
the most common, seems to reduce the whole passage to comparative 
insignificance, or else makes it speak that which is contradictory to 
Christian doctrine. 

It is worthy of particular remark, that the last clause of ver. 11, 
Viz., διὰ τὸ ἐνοιχοῦν΄. . . . ὑμῖν has been the subject of much critical 
conjecture and variation in its reading. The MSS. Α., B., C., 
(which has αὐτῷ for airod,) 12 Codd. minuse., and many of the 
fathers, exhibit the common reading, viz., διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ aveb- 
ματος; while διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτῷ πνεῦμα is the reading of D., E., F., G., 
the majority of MSS. minusce., Syr., Erp., Sahid., Vul., Ital., Ori- 
gen, Ephiph., Phot., Chrys., (usually,) Method., Theod., Maxim., 
Theoph., Gicum., Iren., Tertul., Hilar., Ruf, Sedulius. This seems 
to be best supported, and is preferred by Erasmus, Stephens, Mill, 
Bengel, Griesbach, Knapp, Koppe, and many recent critics. The 
internal probability is strong against the first reading in the Genitive; 


ROMANS Vill. 11. S57 


for διά with the Gen. would denote the agent by whom the change 
in the bodies of Christians is to be made; whereas that agent has 
been already named, viz., ὁ ἐγείρας τὸν Χριστόν. The reading dard... 
“πνεῦμα, in the Accus., of course obliges us to translate, BECAUSE OF 
the Spirit which dwelleth in you. In this way the last clause assigns 
a reason or ground why he who raised up Jesus from the dead, will - 
quicken his true followers; it is because he has given them his 
Spirit; and having done thus much for them, he will complete the 
work which he has begun. 

On the whole, amid the almost endless diversities of explanation 
which have been exhibited here, it seems to me that very little 
regard has been paid to the analogy of the course of thought and 
diction in chapter vi., which corresponds so nearly as to remove all 
serious difficulty. There Christians are represented as dead to sin; 
their old man as crucified; and there, as Christ was raised from the 
dead by the glorious power of the Father, so are they quickened in 
like manner, in order that they may live unto God. If therefore it 
should be said (as it has been), that ‘inasmuch as the raising of 
Christ from the dead was an act of physical power (so to speak), in 
like manner the raising up of believers here must be regarded in the 
same light; the obvious answer is, that Paul goes through an ex- 
tended comparison of the like nature in chap. vi., where the death 
of Christ and his resurrection are all along taken in the natural 
and physiological sense, while the death of believers and their resur- 
rection are taken throughout in a mora] sense. What hinders us 
then from regarding the present passage in the same light? Indeed, 
after all which the apostle has said in chapter vi. in relation to this 
subject, I think there should be strong and plain reasons given for 
a physiological sense of his words here, before we can adopt it. It 
is contrary to his own analogy, and inapposite to his present 
purpose. 

Nor are the objections of Reiche to the adoption of the moral 
sense, of any considerable weight. He says, (1) That ‘ σώματα 
(plural) cannot be employed in the same figurative sense as od. 
But why not? Σάρξ is not used in the plural, merely because it has 
no plural. Σῶμα in the singular is clearly exchanged with σάρξ (see 
ver. 13); and σώματα in the plural as applied not to one but to all 
believers, is altogether appropriate. (2) ‘ @vnrés has only a physiolo- 
gical sense.’ But although this is usually true, it is manifestly 
employed here as the mere substitute for νεκρόν in ver. 10; and this 


358 ROMANS VIII. 12, 13. 


latter word confessedly has very often a figurative or moral sense. 
(3) ‘ Ζωοποιήσει must have a future meaning; but believers are already 
quickened in a moral sense. The answer to this is, they are indeed 
alive as to the spirit and temper of the mind; but the process of sanc- 
tification, until all the bodily appetites are thoroughly subdued and 
mortified, is usually a long one, and the apostle might well employ 
ζωοποιήσει. (4) ‘As God raised Christ physically, so the resurrection 
of believers must be here taken as physical.’ But this has already 
been answered above. 


CHAP. VIII. 12—17. 


In the preceding verses, the apostle has consummated his argument to prove that Chris- 
tians, who are under grace, are the only persons who possess means adequate and ample of living 
devoted to the service of God, and of renouncing sin and mortifying all their sinful desires. 
What. those under the law could not do, God, sending his Son on account of sin, and pouring out 
his Spirit, and giving a filial and obedient temper of mind, has accomplished. The mind is thus 
filled with desires of conformity to Christ, and even the body, the seat of carnal ear erp and 
sinful desires, will be so quickened as to become an instrument of righteousness. 

And what now follows? Just that which we should expect from an apostle so zealous of 
good works as Paul, and so grateful for the blessings of redemption, viz., an animated exhorta- 
tion to live in a manner accordant with Christian obligation, and a view of the consequences 
which will ensue from the believer’s being united to Christ. 


(12) "Aga otv.... ζῇν, therefore, brethren, we are not under obliga- 
tion to the flesh, to live ina carnal manner; i. é., since the Spirit is 
given to us, and we have such privileges, we must not obey the lusts 
of the flesh. The manner of expression is what rhetoricians call 
λιτότης, t. 6.) Where less is said than is meant. The writer means that 
we are bound not to obey the dictates of carnal appetites and desires. 
—Toi. . . @jvshows the object of obligation : ‘ We are under no obli- 
gation—to live, &e.’ Tod with the Inf. has a various and widely 
extended usage; see N. Test. Gramm. ὃ 138. 8. 

(13) Ei yag.... ἀποϑνήσκειν, for if ye live in a carnal manner, ye 
shall die; i. ¢., if ye live carnally, ye shall come under the penalty 


of the divine law, which threatens death to the soul that sins. See 
on ϑάνατος, inchap. v.12. Reiche, who all along understands Sévaro; 


as designating temporal death, concedes that here it must have 
a more extended sense. How could he have avoided such a conces- 


ROMANS ὙΠ]. 14. 359 


sion? For if the death of the body only is threatened, then there 
is no distinction between those who live in a carnal manner, and those 
who do not, which would deprive the apostle’s words of all meaning. 

El 6: . . . ζήσεσθε, but if through the Spirit ye mortify the deeds of 
the body, ye shall live; ὁ. e., if, yielding to the influence of the Spirit 
which dwelleth in you, ye crucify the old man with his lusts, if you | 
suppress those deeds to which your carnal affections would lead, then 
ye shall live, z.¢., enjoy the spiritual blessedness which the gospel 
promises to the obedient. 

The exchange of σῶμα for σάρξ, in the phrase τὰς πράξεις TOU σώματος 
is plain. D., E., F., G., and many of the fathers read σαρκός for 
σώματος § atest ville ΚΥΡΆ that they understood both in the same 
sense here. The efforts of Reiche to show that σῶμα means ‘ body 
as a composite organization,’ and σάρξ, “body as an animated, active, 
aad excitable substance,’ are here to no purpose : nor indeed is this 
in conformity with Pauline usage. 

(14) The γάρ at the beginning of this verse, shows that what 
follows is illustration or confirmation of the declaration just made. 
The apostle has just said, that those who mortify their sinful appe- 
tites and desires, shall live, ὃ. 6.. shall enjoy the happiness which the 
gospel proffers. What is the proof of this? One convincing evi- 
dence is, that such persons are led by the Spirit of God; consequently 
_ they must be the children of God; and if so, he will give them the 
portion which belongs to children, viz., the heavenly inheritance. 
Such is the course of thought that follows in the sequel of γάρ, and 
such the confirmation of the promise implied in ζήσεσθε. 

"Ooo γάρ... + Θεοῦ, for so many as are led by the Spirit of God, 
they are the sons of God. 'That a special divine influence is here 
implied in ἄγονται, would seem to be plain; for if nothing but the 
simple means of moral suasion by objective truth is employed in guid- 
ing the children of God, how do they differ from others who enjoy 
the same means? If you say: ‘The difference is that the former 
obey the suasion, while the latter resist it; I answer: The fact is 
true; but then it does not reach the point of difficulty. How comes 
the one to obey the suasion, and the other to resist it! What is the 
first occasion of this? If you say: ‘A corrupt nature leads the im- 
" penitent to resist ;’ then I ask: Had not the regenerate the like cor- 
rupt nature before their change? What then is the efficient cause 
why one obeys and the other disobeys? The passage before us 
ascribes it to the influence of the Spirit of God. That this influence 


560 ROMANS vur. 15, 16. 


is special, follows from the fact, that if we suppose it to be common 
in the same degree to all men, it would be difficult to account for it 
why all men under the influence of truth are not converted. Since, 
however, the fact is that they are not, it would seem to follow 
that where they do become converted, the influence of the Spirit is 
special. 

Υἱοὶ Θεοῦ, sons of God, a term of endearment; comp. Matt. v. 9, 45. 
Luke vi. 35. xx. 36. Rom. viii. 19. 2 Cor. vi. 18. Gal. iii. 26. iv. 
6, 7, et 4110. comp. Hosea xi. 1. Ex. iv. 22,23. See also the remarks 
on υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ in Rom. i. 3, with the Excursus. 

(15) Odyde...... εἰς φόβον, for ye have not received a servile 
spirit, that ye should again be afraid; 1. e., ye have not the spirit of 
slaves, who, being in bondage, are fearing and trembling before the 
dreaded severity of a master’; in other words, ye are not, through 
fear of condemnation or death, all your life time ἐνοχοι δουλείας, Heb. 
ii. 15. Γάρ illustrantis et confirmantis ; for the object of the writer 
is, to show that they are sons and not slaves. 

Πνεῦμα δουλείας, and πνεῦμ υἱοθεσίας is such a spirit as slavery is wont 
to produce, ὦ 6.7 such a temper or disposition of mind as is appropri- 
ate to it, and ste a spirit or temper of mind as belongs to ἈΠΈΘΑΝΕ. 
ate children. 

"ADAG... ὁπατήρ! but ye have received a filial spirit, by which 
ye cry: Abba, Father! 'That is, instead of the timid and cowering 
spirit of slaves, who tremble before their masters, we are endowed 
with the spirit of children, so that we may approach God with affec- 
tion and confidence. The word ᾿Αββᾷ is the Chaldee S838, sc. 
πατήρ! Augustine and Calvin think that the design of using both 
᾿Αββᾶ and ὁ πατήρ here, is to show that both Jews and Greeks, each 
in their own respective language, would call on God as a Father. 
But the objection to this is, that the same idiom is exhibited in 
Mark xiv. 36 and Gal. iv. 6, where such a distinction is out of ques- 
tion ; at any rate, in the first of these two cases it is out of question. 
If ὁ πατήρ here be designed for any thing more than a translation of 

᾿Αββᾶ, we may suppose the repetition to be designed for expressing 
intensity of child-like feeling, for this naturally prompts to a repe- 
tition of the name of a parent. So Theodoret. ‘O σατήρ is the Nom. 
usod instead of the Vocative; New Test. Gramm. § 21. Note 3. 

(16) Αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα... Θεοῦ, this same Spirit testifies to our minds 
that we are the children of Οἷα; 1. 6.5) (as many interpret the passage) 
this filial, confiding, affectionate spirit, imparted by the Spirit of 


ROMANS VIIt. 17. 361 


God who dwells in us, affords satisfactory evidence to our minds that 
we are the children of God. Svyzmagrvee*here may mean no more than 
the simple verb wagrugéw; for so συμμαρτυρέω is employed in Rom. ii. 
15. ix. 1, al. The sentiment of the passage thus construed would 
be, that the affectionate spirit which the children of God possess, 
is an evidence to their minds of their standing in a filial relation to. - 
him. Τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν means to our minds, animis nostris. On any 
ground of exegesis, this sense (for Rees) is here to be attributed 
to this expression. 

There is, however, another method of interpreting this verse, 
which makes αὐτὸ τὸ rvet~xto mean the Spirit of God, the Spirit men- 
tioned in vers. 9, 14. This is certainly not an improbable exegesis ; 
and many distinguished interpreters have followed it. Very recently, 
Flatt and Tholuck have both defended it. 

On the whole I am persuaded, that αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα is the same as 
πνεῦμα Θεοῦ in ver.14. And if the question be urged, as it is natural 
that it should be: ‘ How then does the Spirit bear witness to our 
minds or souls, that we are the children of God?’- The answer is, 
by imparting the spirit of adoption or a filtal spirit to us. It is this, 
then, which affords the evidence to our minds of being in a state of 
filiation, 1. e., of bearing the relation to God of spiritual children. 
And as this spirit comes from the Spirit of God, so he may be said 
in this case to bear witness, because he is the author of that spirit 
which affords the evidence of our jfiliation. Those who adopt the 
first method of interpretation, refer αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα to the πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας 
of the preceding clause; and compare this with vers. 20, 27, which 
they construe in the like way. 

That the world deny any such testimony in the hearts of believers, 
and that they look on it with scorn or treat it with derision, proves 
only that they are unacquainted with it; not that it is an illusion. 
It was a sensible and true remark of the French philosopher, Hem- 
sterhuys, in regard to certain sensations which he was discussing : 
“Those who are so unhappy as never to have had such sensations, 
either through weakness of the natural organ, or because they have 
never cultivated them, will not comprehend me.” C&uvres, I. p. 208. 
Paul has, on another occasion, expressed himself, relative to the point 
in question with still more power: “The natural man receiveth not 
the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him,” 
1 Cor. 11. 14. 


(17) Ev δὲ τέκνα καὶ κληρονόμοι, 2. 6.7 if we sustain the relation of sons, 


862 ROMANS vit. IS. 


- then shall we be treated as such, ὦ, 6.) we shall be heirs. After τέχνα 
the verb ἐσμέν is of course implied, and before κληρονόμοι the reader 
must supply ἐσόμεθα. Κληρονόμοι Θεοῦ, heirs of God, means, possessors 
of that inheritance which God bestows. δέ continuative.—XvyxAn- 
ρονόμοι Χριστοῦ, joint heirs with Christ; 7. e., as Christ endured suffer- 
ings and was advanced to glory, in like manner shall we also be 
advanced to glory. We shall be made like him, be united to him, 
be with him, in possession of the heavenly inheritance. For the 
manner in which Christ obtained this heritage, see and comp. Phil. 
ii. 8, 9. Heb. ii. 9, 10. v. 7—9; and for the comparison of believers 
to Christ, see 2 Tim. ii. 11,12. Heb. xii. 2. Rev. iii. 21. John xvii. 
2224. These texts sufficiently explain the sequel of the verse, 
εἴπερ x. τ. A. Which may be rendered: ‘In case we suffer as he did 
[in the cause of truth], in order that we may be glorified with him,’ 


CHAP. VIL. 18—25. 


THESE Verses constitute one of those passages which the critics call loci vexatissimi. The genera] 
object of the passage, however, cannot fail to be evident to every considerate reader. In ver. 19 
the apostle asserts, that the sufferings of the present life are not to be regarded in comparison with the 
glory which is to de revealed, i. e., future glory is great beyond all comparison or expression. Such 
is the proposition to be illustrated or confirmed. But how is this effected? I answer, that the 
theme being thus introduced by the apostle, he proceeds in the following manner: ‘ Now that 
such a glory is yet to be revealed (in other words that there is a world of surpassing glory beyond 
the grave), the whole condition of things or rather of mankind, in the present world, ahundantly 
proves. Here a frail and perishable nature serves to show, that no stable source of happiness can 
be found on earth. From the commencement of the world down to the present time, it has always 
been thus. In the midst of the sufferings and sorrows to which their earthly existence exposes 
them, mankind naturally look forward to another and better world, where happiness without alloy 
and without end may be enjoyed. Even Christians themselves, joyful as their hopes should make 
them, find themselves still compelled by sufferings and sorrows to sigh and groan, and to expect 
a state of real and permanent enjoyment only in heaven; so that they can only say, for the pre- 
sent, that they are saved because they hope or expect salvation in another and better world. The 
very fact that here they, like all others around them, are in a state of trial, and that they only 
hope for glory, shows that the present fruition of it is not to be expected 

The practical conclusion from all this the apostle now proceeds to dra ¢. viz., ‘that Christians, 
in the midst of sufferings and trials, ought not to faint or to be discouragee inasmuch as a glory 
to be revealed is in prospect, which should make them regard their prese» temporary sufferings 
as altogether unworthy to be accounted of.’ 


(18) Λογίζομαι here means J count, reckon, regard, estimate. The 
classical Greek writers employed this word rather in the sense of 


ROMANS vill. 18. 363 


computing or reckoning, 6. g., ἃ sum of numbers, or of estimating a 
conclusion drawn from premises by the act of reasoning. 

It is difficult at first sight to account for the γώρ here, which, in 
nearly every instance where it is employed (if not always and neces- 
sarily), has reference to a preceding sentiment, fact, &c. I construe 
here in this simple manner, viz., ‘ We shall be glorified with Christ, _ 
ὦ, é., obtain great and eternal glory, for (γάρ) all the sufferings and 
sorrows of the present state are only temporary. Every thing shows 
that they are so, and that they only prepare us for a happiness that is 
to come which is great and glorious. All things do, and must, work 
together for good to those who love God.’ 

παθήματα τοῦ viv καιροῦ means suffering such as Christians were then 
called to endure, or sufferings such as all men are exposed to endure 
in the present life. The latter seems to be the preferable sense ; 
because the reasoning of the apostle, in the context, has respect not 
to time then present only, but to the whole period of our present life 
down to its close, when a glorious reward succeeds a life of sorrow. 
The latitude in which the Genitive case is employed should be noted 
from the phrase before us. The sufferings of the present. time surely 
does not mean the suffermgs which time endures as the subject of 
them, but those which Christians endure while they continue in the 
present world. The Genitive here, as often elsewhere, is the Geni- 
tivus temporis, 2. 6., it marks the time belonging to the noun which 
precedes it, the designation of which is intended to qualify that noun. 
See N. Test. Gramm. § 99. 1. ἡ. 

Οὐκ ἄξια, non equiparanda sunt, are not to be put on a level, or 
are not to be reputed, not to be counted or regarded. If the first sense 
be adopted, then πρός which follows in the construction, may be ren- 
dered in its usual sense, with. But if the second sense be preferred 
(and it seems to be preferable), viz., reputed, regarded, then πρός must 
be rendered compared with, in comparison of. So this preposition 
is sometimes used; 6. g., Ecclus. xxv.19, Hvery evil is small πρὸς κακίαν 
γυναικός, compared with the malignity of a woman. Joseph. cont. 
Apion. IL. 22, All matter is worthless πρὸς εἰκόν τὴν τούτου compared 
with the image of this [god]. To construe ἄξια in such a way as to 
make the apostle affirm, that the present sufferings of Christians are 
not to be deemed equally desirable with the glory which is to be 
revealed, would be making him to say what no man of common sense 
would think it necessary to affirm. But to say, that when we look 
at future glory we should make but little account of these sufferings, 


364 ROMANS vill. 19. 


is supposing him to utter a sentiment worthy of the noblest of all 
Christian philosophers. 

The phrase τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, is equivalent to ἀποκα- 
λυφϑθησομένη. The Greek could use his regular future without a 
helping verb; or he could, as here, use the nine μέλλω and the In- 
finitive instead of a regular future. The employment of μέλλουσαν 
here indicates the confident expectation not only of future glory, but 
of its speedy revelation. MéAdwis employed by the Greeks to desig- 
nate a proximate future. The word δόξα, which here signifies future 
happiness, is used by the New Testament writers in a sense quite 
different from the classic one; for this is opinion, fame, reputation, 
&c. Dut the New Testament meaning of δόξα is borrowed from the 
Hebrew 722 or 175, splendour, magnificence, excellence. The 
idea of δόξα in the presence of God, seems to be founded upon being 
there in the light or splendour of his presence. Hence light is used 
so often in the Bible as the image of happiness. Hence too we may 
see something of the plenary meaning which δόξα has, when used to 
describe a state of future happiness. In the present world, “ eye 
hath not seen ;” but when another world bursts upon the vision of 
Christians, after death shall have rent away the veil of mortality, 
there ‘in God’s light they will see light ; there too they shall enjoy 
“ everlasting light, for God will be their glory.” 

19) Here we have another γάρ which sustains a relation to the 
preceding verse, like that which γάρ in ver. 18 sustains to ver. 17. 
The apostle in ver. 18 has introduced, as an object of attention the 
glory which is to be revealed. That there is such a glory he now 
proceeds to show, or at least to adduce reasons why Christians should 
confidently expect it. Τάρ, therefore, is in ver. 19 prefixed to a 
clause added by way of confirming the sentiment of the preceding 
assertion. 

᾿Αποχαραδοκία, earnest expectation, the German Ahndung. The 
etymology favours this meaning; for the word comes from ἀπό (prep.), 
κάρα head, and δοκεύω to observe, look after. The Etymologicum 
Magnum explains it by τῇ κεφαλῇ προβλέπειν, to thrust forward the 
head and see, i. 6.5. to look with anxiety or eagerness; like the Hebrew 
Spann. The same sense the word has in Phil. i. 20. Ernesti 
observes, that the word is not intensive in the New Testament (Inst. 
Interpr. 1. § 2); but in this he seems to be plainly mistaken, if we 
may judge either from the composition of the word itself, or from the 
nature of the passages in which it stands. 


ROMANS vit. 19. 365 


We come now to the principal word, viz., χτίσις, on which very 
much of the difficulty of the passage before us turns. In order to 
proceed in a satisfactory manner with the investigation of it, let us 
first consider its meaning in the other passages of the New Testa- 
ment where it occurs, and this as compared with the corresponding 
Hebrew words; and secondly examine in order the various meanings ~ 
which have been assigned to the word in this place, and endeavour 
to vindicate that sense to which the preference seems to belong. 

I. In regard to the meaning of κτίσις, in all the other passages of 
the New Testament where it is found, excepting the one before us, 
they may be distributed into two classes; viz. 

1. It means the act of creation, creating. In such a sense it is 
generally conceded that it is employed in Mark x. 6. xiii. 19. Rom. 
i. 20. 2 Pet. ii. 4. Yet all of these significations might be referred 
to No. 2, which follows, as the sense would be equally good. But 
this first sense is the proper and primary meaning of the word, 
according to the usual principles of the Greek language, in which 
words of tfis class commonly denote the act of doing any thing, they 
being what grammarians call nomina actionis. So in the Greek 
classics, the sense of making, constructing, building, creating, &c., 
is the one attached to this form of the word. But in the examples 
of χτίσις in the New Testament, the meaning is for the most part 
different from this. 

2. It means creature, created thing, any product of creating 
power, creation as an existing thing. Such a deflexion from the 
primary meaning of a word is very common, not only in the Greek, 
but in all other languages; the abstract (nomen actionis) passing, as 
erammarians say, into the concrete sense; ὃ. ¢., the word which de- 
noted action, being also used to denote the consequences or effects of 
that action. So here, χτίσις (the act of creating), is more commonly 
employed in the New Testament to signify the effects of this action, 
viz., a thing created, res creata. But this second signification being 
in its own nature generic, it may either be used generically, or it may 
be employed to designate any of the several species of meanings that 
constitute a part of the generic one. 

(a) It is used in its generic sense, 7. ¢., as meaning created things, 
—ereation, any created thing, in Rom. i. 25. viii. 39. Col. i. 15. Heb. 
iv. 13. Rev. iii. 14, perhaps also in Mark x. 6. xiii. 19. Rom. i. 20. 
and 2 Pet. iii. 4. In a sense very nearly allied to this, it is used in 
Heb. ix. 11 to designate the material creation as such, in distinction 


860 : ROMANS Vit. 19. 


from the spiritual one. This distinction, however, results rather 
from the exigency of the passage, and it seems to’ be made here 
rather by the word ταύτης than from the force of χτίσις. 

(ὁ) Κτίσις 15, 150 used in a specific sense, and means‘the rational ὦ 
creation, man, men, the world of mankind. Thus in Mark xvi. 15, 
‘Go preach the gospel πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει, to all men, to everyman? Col. 
i. 23, ‘which [gospel] has been preached ἐν τάσῃ τῇ κτίσει, among all 
nations. 1 Pet. ii. 13, ‘Be subject, then, σώσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει, to 
every man, to every human being, for the Lord’s sake, ὁ. e., out of 
regard to the Lord Christ. What the meaning of this is, the explan- 
ation immediately subjoined informs us, viz., εἴτε βασιλεῖ ὡς ὑπερέχοντι" 
εἴτε ἡγεμόσιν, ὡς δὶ αὐτοῦ % τ᾿ A.3 © be subject to every man placed in 
authority, whether he be a king who has pre-eminence, or a governor 
appointed,’ &c. These examples make it clear, that χτίσις is employed 
to designate a specific class of created beings, as well as created things 
in general. | 

(c) The word is sometimes employed in a more specific and limited 
sense still, viz., to designate the new rational creation, those who are 
created anew in Christ Jesus, Christians. Such is the meaning in 
2 Cor. v. 17, ‘If any one be in Christ, he is καινὴ κτίσις, a new crea- — 
ture.” Gal. vi. 15, ‘In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncir- 
cumcision avails any thing, but καινὴ κτίσις This, however, may 
mean a new act of creating, ἃ, 6.) the power of the Spirit in renovating 
the soul. But in both of these cases, the special meaning it must be 
confessed, depends rather on καινή than upon xr/ois. 

These are all the cases in which xrioig occurs in the New Testa- 
ment, excepting those in the passage under examination. From these 
we gather the conclusion, that the wsus loguendi allows us to assign 
to κτίσις either of the three meanings ranked under No. 2, ὃ, ¢., it may 
be interpreted as meaning things created or the natural creation, 
men or mankind, or Christians who are a new spiritual creation; 
yet this last meaning is plainly uncertain, unless some qualifying 
word (6. g., καινή) is joined with χτίσις. 

[ have only to add here, as a confirmation of the above meanings 
assigned to κτίσις (which however are not altogether peculiar to the 
New Testament, see Judith ix. 12. xi. 14. Wisd. ii. 6. xvi. 24. xix. 
6), that the Chaldee and the Rabbinic Hebrew coincide with the 
usage just exhibited. ‘The words in these languages which corre- 
spond to χτίσις, are 813, SNM, ANB, M2, which all mean ereatio, 
creatura, res creata, t.¢., the act of creating, and the thing created, 


ROMANS vir. 19. 367 


just in the same way as χτίσις does. Moreover, in Rabbinic Hebrew 
the plural form 1°72 sometimes means homines, men, specially the 
heathen. All this, we see, corresponds. with the New Testament 
use of xrios, and explains it when a reference to the Greek 
classics would not. In regard to the last particular of all, viz., 
that 12 sometimes means the heathen, by way of degradation or 
contempt; itis singular that we have adopted, into vulgar English, 
the very same meaning of the word ereature, and applied it ina 
derogatory sense to human beings; e. g., ‘the creature refused to 
obey.” Ἢ 

II. We have seen what meanings are assigned to χτίσις by the 
writers of the New Testament, and what belonged to the corre- 
sponding Chaldee and Hebrew words. Which of these, now, shall 
be applied to χτίσις in the passage before us ? 

That the reader may see how variously this question has been 
answered, I will lay before him the different interpretations given to 
it. There are, 1. the Angels. 2. The souls (the animating prin- 
ciple) of the planetary worlds. ὃ. Adam and Eve, because they were 
the immediate work of creative power. 4. The souls of believers, 
in distinction from their bodies. 5. The bodies of believers, 2. ¢., their 
dead bodies, in distinction from their souls. 6. Christians in general. 
7. Christians in particular, 7. ¢., either Jewish Christians, or Gen- 
tile Christians. 8. Unconverted menin general. 9. Unconverted 
men in particular, ὦ. ¢., either unconverted Jews or unconverted 
heathen. 10. The material creation, inanimate and animate, exclu- 
sive of rational beings. 11. The rational creation or men in gene- 
ral, mankind. 

All these supposed meanings I have canvassed in an exegesis of 
vers. 18—25, printed in the Biblical Repository, Vol. I. pp. 363, seq. 
I deem the first five too improbable to need discussion here; and 
therefore proceed with the others. 

The sixth and seventh opinions may be both ranked under one 
head, viz., that of Christians. Can χτίσις, then, here mean Christians, 
either in general or in particular ? 

(a) The usus loquendi is wanting, to render this probable. ‘The 
word xriois in 2 Cor. v. 17 and Gal. vi. 15, does not, as I have 
already remarked, of itself mean Christians. In both these cases it . 
is connected with χαινή. 

(ὁ) In vers. 19, 21, the word xricig seems to designate those who 
are distinguished from the children of God, and who belong not to 


808 ROMANS Vill. 19. 


such as are now entitled to their privileges. But I do not consider. 
this argument to be decisive; for the expressions in vers. 19,21, are 
not much unlike that in verse 23, where Christians are represented 
as groaning within themselves and waiting for their filiation (υἱοθεσίαν) 
2. 6.7 for the consequences of it, viz., the redemption of their bodies 
from their present frail, painful, and dying state. 

(c) Amore conclusive argument is deducible from the form of ver. 
23, where αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ Τινεύματος ἔχοντες SEEMS plainly to mean 
Christians, as I shall in the sequel endeavour to show. Conceding 
this, then, it is quite plain that κτίσις in the preceding verses cannot 
mean Christians, because the class of men designated in verse 23, is 
very clearly distinguished from the preceding class in vers. 19—21, 
who are there designated by κτίσις. 

On the same ground, viz., that χτίσις cannot be regarded as mean- 
ing Christians in general, it must be excluded from meaning Chris- 
tians in particular, 7.¢., either Jewish Christians or Gentile Christians. 
How are these to be distinguished from “ those who had the first- 
fruits of the Spirit?’ Even supposing that ἀπαρχή means here spe- 
cial miraculous gifts (as some believe), we may ask: Were there no 
Jewish Christians who possessed these? Surely they above all others 
possessed them. But still, were there no Gentile Christians who 
possessed them? This will not be denied. If we look into the first 
epistle to the Corinthians, we find there a graphic account of the 
special gifts of the Spirit, which leaves no room to doubt that they 
were distributed to Gentile as well as to Jewish Christians. Still 
stronger is the argument, if we suppose (as I shall endeavour here- 
after to show that we must suppose) ἀπαρχήν here to mean the preli- 
bation, the foretaste, the earnest of future glory, which is common to 
all Christians. For as those who have this ἀπαρχήν, are here plainly 
and explicitly distinguished from those denominated χτίσις above; so, 
if these are Christians in general (as they clearly seem to be), it fol- 
lows that xriois above is not used to designate either Christians in 
general, or Jewish or Gentile Christians in particular. Neither of 
these classes were distinguished from other Christians, by the exclu- 
sive possession of miraculous gifts or the exclusive possession of the 
earnest of the heavenly inheritance; and there seems, therefore, to 
_ be no ground for making a distinction of such a nature. It must 
necessarily follow, that if κτίσις means either Jewish Christians or 
Gentile Christians as such, then this class of Christians did not par- 
take of the ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ Πνεύματος ; for those who did partake of it, 


ROMANS vit. 19. 369 


are clearly distinguished from those indicated by κτίσις. But inas- 
much as both these classes of Christians did partake of the gift in 
question, so neither of them can be specifically designated here by 
κτίσις. Le Clerc, Nésselt, Schleusner, and others have defended the 
exegesis in question ; but it will not bear examination. 

The eighth and ninth opinions may also be classed under one - 
head. These are, that χτίσις means either unconverted men in general 
as such, or unconverted men in particular, viz., Jews or Gentiles. In 
regard to the specific meaning here assigned to χτίσις, I cannot see 
any tolerable ground of support for it. Why should unconverted 
Jews be represented as peculiarly exposed to a frail and dying state? 
Or why should unconverted Gentiles be so represented? Surely 
there is no good reason for any distinction here, as all are equally 
exposed to the miseries of life. We cannot therefore admit the exe- 
gesis which here gives a specific meaning to κτίσις, limiting it either 
to unconverted Jews or to unconverted Gentiles. 

More probable is the interpretation, which assigns to χτίσις the 
meaning of unconverted men in general. In this case it is easy to 
make a plain and evident distinction between κχτίσις in vers. 19—22, 
and οἱ τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἔχοντες in ver. 23. I think this to be 
substantially the right meaning. But I would not assign to it the 
signification simply of unconverted men. I apprehend the meaning 
to be the same as in Mark xvi. 15. Col. 1. 232. 1 Pet. ii. 13, ὦ. 6.) 
man, men, mankind in general. But of this, and of the objections 
urged against it, I shall say more in the sequel. 

On the whole, then, we have reduced our multiplex interpretations 
down to two, viz., the material creation in general animate and inani- 
mate, and the rational creation or mankind in general. These remain 
to be carefully examined. Critics of high rank and great abilities 
are divided between these two interpretations. 

We may commence with the first of these two meanings, that of 
the material creation, the world in general, or the universe exclusive 
of rational beings. This has had many defenders both in ancient 
and modern times. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, C2cume- 
nius, Jerome, Ambrose, Luther, Koppe, Doddridge, Flatt, Tholuck, 
Reiche, and a multitude of others have been its advocates. Flatt, 
Tholuck, and Reiche, in their recent commentaries, have collected 
all which has been said in its favour, besides advancing some things 
peculiar to themselves. What they have brought forward deserves 
a serious examination. 


2A 


370 ROMANS vu. 20, 


That τίσις might be employed to indicate the natural creation 
around us, consisting of things animate and inanimate, may be seen 
by examining the usus logue. of the word under No. 2. a, above. 
On this part of the subject, there can be no just ground of contro- 
versy among philologists. But is it so employed in the passage before 
us? This is the only question that affords any room for dispute. 

I have satisfied my own mind, that χτίσις means here, as in Mark 
xvi. 15. Col. i. 23 (and for substance in 1 Pet. ii. 13), mankind in 
general, gens humana, in distinction from, but not in opposition to, 
Christians as such. The reasons of this as detailed at length, and 
the examination of different views, I have thought it most proper to 
exhibit in an Excursus on Rom. viii. 19, inasmuch as they would 
occupy too much room in the body of the Commentary. 

Τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀπεκδέχεται, expects or watts for the 
revelation of the sons of God; i. e., the period when the sons of God, 
in their ultimate state and endowed with all their honours and privi- 
leges, shall be fully disclosed. This will be at the general judgment; 
when the Father who seeth in secret will reward them openly. Here 
they are in obscurity; the world knoweth them not. They are like 
to the seven thousand of old who had not bowed the knee to Baal, 
but who were unknown even to the prophet Elijah. However, it 
will not always be so. The day is coming when they will shine 
forth as the sun in his strength and as the stars for ever and ever, in 
the kingdom of their God and Father. | 

In what sense the xricig ἀπεχδέχεται, expects or watts for such a 
revelation, is stated in the Excursus on this verse, and therefore it 
need not to be repeated. I take the generic idea of happiness in 
« future and better state, to be the main design of the writer in this 
case, | 

(20) Τῇ γὰρ ματαιότητι ἡ κτίσις ὑπετάγη, for the creature, ἃ. 6.) man- 
kind, was subjected toa frail and dying state. That ματαιότης here 
has the sense thus assigned to it, is clear from the epexegesis of it in 
ver. 21, viz., δουλεία τῆς φορᾶς, which is there used instead of repeat- 
ing ματαιότης. Such as wish for further confirmation as to this sense 
of the word, may consult in the Sept. Ps. [χ]. 9. xxxvili. 5. Ecc.1, 
2, 14. 

As the Hebrew ΣῊ vanity, to which ματαιότης in the Septuagint 
corresponds, sometimes designates an idol; so some commentators 
have here interpreted ματαιότης in a corresponding manner, viz., man- 
kind became subjected to idolatry, or the natural world was employ- 


ROMANS VITI. 21. oak 


ed as the object of idolatry. So Tertullian, Luther, Marck, Baum- 
garten, and others. Consequently they interpreted the succeeding 
clause, not voluntarily but through him who subjected it, as having 
reference either to Satan, or to Adam as concerned in the original 
fall of man. But δουλεία τῆς φϑορᾶς (ver. 21) seems to remove all 
probability from this interpretation of ματαιότης; and of course ὑπο-- 
τάξαντα can be applied only to God the Creator of man. Compare 
Gen. 11. 17—19. | 

Οὔχ. ἑκοῦσα, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντο, not voluntarily, but by him who 
put ἐξ in subjection, to a frailand dying state. That is, the creature 
did not voluntarily choose its present condition of sorrow and pain, 
for this cannot well be imagined; but God the Creator has placed it 
in this condition; it is by his sovereign will, by the arrangements of 
his holy providence, that man is placed in a frail and dying state. 
It seems quite probable, that Paul here referred in his own mind to 
the effects of the fall, as described in νυ. 12 seq. This state of 
ματαιότης was not original, but superinduced by sin. The use of the 
Aorist, ὑπετάγη seems to indicate some specific fact of this nature 
which happened in past time. Had the apostle’s design been merely 
general, i. e., merely to say that man has been and is frail, he would 
most naturally have employed ὑποτέτακται, Perf. passive. But still, 
this frail condition is not to be considered as an irretrievable misfor- 
tune or evil. Distressing and frail as the state of man is, it is still 
a state of hope. So we are assured in the next verse. 

Διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα 1s adduced by some to show that διά, on account 
of or because of, may be understood of an efficient cause, although 
employed with the Accusative. Bretschneider (Lex.) has given many 
examples of this nature, some of which, however, need to be stricken 
out. If we render διά by per, Germ. durch; i. e., through, by means 
of, this will naturally refer the noun which follows the preposition to 
the class of efficient causes; and that such a rendering is lawful, many 
critics contend, and most concede. 

(21) Ex’ ἐλπίδι, in hope. Here the Dative designates the state or 
condition in which the χτίσις is, although subjected to ματαιότητι. It 
is a state in which a hope of deliverance can be indulged. It is not 
a state of despair. Ἐπ᾿ ἐ) σίδι θυ be connected either with ὑπετάγη 
or ὑποτάξαντα. 

Let the reader now ask, whether it is not doing violence to the 
word xrioic, to construe it. here as meaning natural world, and then 
to predicate of it ἑκοῦσα and ἐπ᾽ iris? It would be an example of 


372 ROMANS vir. 21. 


prosopopeia, which I believe even the most animated poetical parts of 
the Scriptures no where present. 

But what is the hope in which the creature is permitted to indulge? 
It i 18, ὅτι, καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις ἐλευθερωθήσεται ἀπὺ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς, that 
this very same creature, viz., the one which is subjected to a frail 
and dying state, shall be freed from the bondage of a perishing con- 
dition. ®dogé comes from φθείρω, to corrupt, to destroy. Here it 
plainly means a state of corruption, i. 6.5 a frail and dying state. Such 
a state the apostle calls δουλεία, bondage; first, because the creature 
was not willingly subjected to it; secondly, because it is not only a 
state of pain and misery, but it places us at the disposal of masters, 
who inflict upon us suffering and sorrow while we cannot resist or 
control them. The word ἐλευθερωθήσεται is fitly chosen as the anti- 
thetic correlative of δουλεία, 

Εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέχνων τοῦ Θεοῦ, [and shall be introduced, 
καὶ εἰσωχθήσεται] tnto the glorious liberty of the children of God. Eis, 
put before the Accusative here, shows the state in which the creature 
is to be brought, after being freed from bondage, 2. 6) εἰς stands before 
the object unto which the creature is to attain, by being delivered 
from the bondage of a frail and dying state. That εἰς very often 
stands before nouns designating the event or effect of any thing, isa 
well-known Greek idiom; and the proofs of it may be seen at large 
in the various lexicons. The phrase, however, I take here to be a 
constructio pregnans, as the grammarians call it, ὃ, e., an elliptical . 
expression, which implies some verb before it, and probably the one 
which I have supplied above. Most plainly ἀπό stands before that 
from which the creature is delivered, and εἰς before that into which 
it is introduced or brought; but the diction is elliptical, or at least 
we must admit brachylogy here. δόξα is used in this place as an 
adjective qualifying the preceding noun, by an idiom which is very 
common throughout the Scriptures. In what sense men in general 
may be said to hope for this state, has been already explained above. 
If there be any objection to predicate this of men in general, is there 
not a still stronger one to predicating it of the natural world? 

Verses 20, 21, thus explained, render a reason why the creature 
looks with ἀποκαραδοκία to another and better state; which is, because 
men are born with an instinctive and unquenchable thirst for happi- 
ness, and cannot find what they desire in this frail and perishing 
condition. This explains the reason why γάρ is prefixed to ver. 20; 
“ γάρ orationi rationem reddenti prefigitur.” 


ROMANS vu, 22, 23. 373 


(22) οἴδαμεν yao... . ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν, for we know that every creature, 
ἃ, e., the whole human race, has sighed and sorrowed together, until 
the present time. In other words, it has been the lot of man, from 
the beginning down to the present time, to be subject to a frail and 
dying state which has cost much sighing and sorrow. Οὔδάμεν means 
as much as to say, no one can have any doubt, we are well assured, 
no one will call it in question. Of course it seems to take for granted, 
that the thing to which it refers is well and familiarly known to all. 
But suppose, now, that the natural world is here represented as 
sighing and sorrowing, from the beginning of the world down to the 
time then present, and this because it waited for its renovation, which 
will take place only at the end of the world, or after the general 
resurrection ; was this a thing so familiar to all, that the apostle 
could appeal to it by saying οἴδαμεν ἢ I cannot but think that the 
advocates themselves of this interpretation must hesitate here. Tap 
is prefixed, in the present case, to a clause which confirms what the 
writer has said, in verse 21, of our frail and dymg state. The mind 
must supply the immediate antecedent thus: ‘I say bondage of a 
perishing state, for (γάρ) the whole creation exhibits abundant evi- 
dence of this.’ | 

The verbs συστενώζει and συνωδίνε; denote the mutual and universal 
sighing and sorrowing of mankind. No one part is exempt; there is 
a mutual correspondence between them all, in regard to the subject 
in question. Those who construe χτίσις of the natural world, of 
course lay an emphasis on the σύν here compounded with the verbs, 
as indicating the correspondence of the natural world with the 
rational one. but the difficulty with this interpretation is, that it 
leaves a great part of rational beings wholly out of the account; a 
thing exceedingly incredible, to say the least. The verbs στενάζει 
and ὠδίνω are appropriate, especially the latter, to the sighs and pains 
of a travailmg woman. ‘The language is therefore exceedingly ap- 
propriate to the apostle’s purpose, inasmuch as it not only indicates 
a great degree of sorrow and distress, but that this is indicative of a 
new birth, ὁ. ¢., a new state of things, or (in other words) that a 
change for the better is to be looked for. The prep. σύν, here joined 
with these two verbs, serves to indicate a mutual participation on all 
sides in the sorrows mentioned. 

(23) Yet not only so, but we ourselves who have the first fruits of — 
the Spirit, even we groan within ourselves ; ἡ. e., not only have man- 
kind in all ages, down to the present hour, been in a frail and sufter- 


374 ROMANS Vil. 23. 


ing state, but even we, who are permitted to cherish the hopes of a 
better world which the gospel inspires, we who have within us an 
earnest of future glory and a pledge that we are the children of God, 
who are to receive the inheritance of his beloved,—even we, who, as 
one might naturally suppose, would on account of our privileges be 
exempted from the common lot of sinful men, we also, like all others, 
are in distress and sigh for deliverance from it. 

The phrase καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαὰρ χὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἐχόντες, has been very 
diversely understood. Some interpret it of special and supernatural 
gifts, limiting it to the apostles only ; while others explain it in the 
like way, but extend it to all Christians who were endowed with such 
gifts. Others regard ἀπαρχή as meaning gi/t or present merely, in a 
general way; while most interpret it as meaning the earnest, or first 
fruits, or pledge, of that which is afterward to be given in a more 
complete manner. 

it becomes necessary, therefore, to investigate the word ἀπαρχή 
with special care. I can find but one meaning of it throughout the 
New Testament; and this is, that which is ‘eae of tts kind, or that 
which is first ὁ in order of time, πρῶτος. It is applied both to persons 
and things, in a sense compounded of both of these, viz., first in 
respect to kind and time also ; 6. g., Rom. xvi. 5. 1 Cor. xvi. 15. James 
i. 18. 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23. Rey. xiv. 4. Bretschneider suggests, in his 
lexicon, that in this last passage it may have the general sense of 
sacrifice or offering, inasmuch as the Septuagint puts it for the He- 
brew 21 which conveys such a meaning. ‘This is possible; but 
on the whole I prefer the other sense. I take the meaning of the 
writer in Rev. xiv. 4 to be, that the persons there named may be 
considered in a light resembling that of the ἀπαρχή in ancient times, 
as the first-fruits of a glorious Christian harvest. 

I understand ἀπαρχή to have the same sense as the Hebrew ΠΝ, 
for which it so often stands; caput, princeps, first in its kind, first 
in point of time, &c. Comp. n’v'Na in Gen. xlix. 3. Prov. viii. 22. 
Lev. ii. 12. xxiii: 10. Deut. xviii. 4. xxvi. 10. xxxiii. 21. Num. xxiv. 
20. Amos vi. 6. In the passage before us, all the Greek fathers ap- 
pear to have attached one and the same meaning to ἀπαρχή, viz., that 
of first fruits, in the sense of earnest, pledge, Jondiasi¢, of joys to 
come. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Basil. The 
apostle represents Christians as the habitation of God by his Spirit, 
Eph. ii. 22, comp. 1 Cor. iii. 16. vi. 19; the Spirit of God dwells in 
them, 1 John iii. 24, iv. 13; and this Spirit, thus conferred on them, is 


ROMANS Vill. 23. 375 


the ἀῤῥαβών, the pledge of future glory, 2 Cor. v. 5. Eph.i 14. What 
hinders, then, that we should understand ἀπαρχή as meaning fore- 
taste or first fruits of future glory which the Spirit who dwells in 
Christians imparts? The usus loguendi of the word does not seem 
to admit of any other exegesis. Nor do we need any other; as this 
is congruous with the nature and design of the passage. 

With Keil, then, in his admirable explanation of this passage 
(Opusc. p. 294 seq.), 1 would interpret it in the manner exhibited 
above. And if this be correct, then it follows that the ἀπαρχή here 
spoken of is common to all true Christians ; and that the interpreta- 
tion which limits this verse to the apostles, or to a few of the primi- 
tive Christians endowed with miraculous gifts, has no stable foun- 
dation. 

That Christians were subject to sorrows, needs not to be proved. 
That they were exposed to more than ordinary ones, may be seen in 
2 Cor. v. 2,3. 1 Cor. xv. 19. That they longed and sighed for de- 
liverance, followed from their very nature. That even the earnest 
of future glory did not exempt them from sufferings, is certain. But 
there is a peculiar energy and delicacy in the expression which 
marks the consequences of their sufferings; we GROAN within our- 
selves, i. 6.9) internally, not externally. We suppress the rising sigh ; 
we bow with submission to the will of God which afflicts us; we re- 
ceive his chastisement as children; our frail nature feels it, and we 
sigh or groan inwardly; but no mourning word escapes us; we 
suppress the outward demonstrations of pain, lest we should even seem 
to complain. 

Is this imaginary on my part? Or did the writer mean to convey 
what I have attributed to hin? So much at least we can say, viz., 
that such a sentiment was worthy of Paul, and of all Christians who 
suffered with him. It is worthy of being carried into practice at the 
present hour; it commends itself to the conscience of every one 
who thoroughly believes in the holy, just, and benevolent providence 
of God. 

Liodecia ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, waiting for [our] adoption or filiation. There 
is a twofold filiation spoken of in the New Testament. The first is 
that which takes place when believers are born again, John i. 12, 
13. il. 3—5. Rom. viii. 14, 15 represents believers as possessing 
, πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας ; see also 1 John ili. 1, 2. But there is another and 
higher sense in which believers are to become the children of God, 
viz., they are to be so, when they shall be perfected in the world of 


376 ROMANS VIII. 24. 


glory, when they become “ the children of the resurrection,” when 
they are made “ like to the angels,” Luke xx. 36. Their first adoy~ 
tion or filiation is secret, in regard to the world; their second is the 
ἀποκάλυψις τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ, when, “he who seeth in secret, shall re- 
ward them openly.” It is probably because the word υἱοθεσίαν here 
used is in itself dubious, that the apostle adds an explanatory or 
epexegetical clause, which he places in apposition with it, viz., τὴν 
ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν, the redemption of our body, 1.¢., its redemp- 
tion from a state of frailty, disease, and death. It is, at the resur- 
rection, to be like to Christ’s glorious body, Phil. iii. 21 ; it is to be 
a σῶμα πνευματικόν, 1 Cor. xv. 44; this mortal is to put on immortality, 
this σῶμα φθαρτόν is to become a σῶμα ἄφθαρτον, 1 Cor. xv. 53, 54. 
Such is the ἀπολύτρωσις of this frail and dying body, which believers 
now inhabit. Comp. ἀπολύτρωσις in Luke xxi. 28. Eph. i. 14. iv. 30. 
Heb. xi. 35. 

The reader will note, as I have had occasion already to intimate, 
that the expression ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος here is equivalent to the 
ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ in ver. 12, and to the ἐλευθερίαν τῶν τέχνων τοῦ 
Θεοῦ in ver. 21. It therefore serves to show what those expressions 
mean, in the connection in which they stand. 

Christians, then, in their present state, must long and wait for 
their second and final adoption or filiation. They must wait with 
confidence; yea, with assurance: “for he who cometh will come, 
and will not tarry.” But let them not regard the present world as 
their home. It is not the Canaan in which they are to rest. They 
must “seek a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker 
is God.” Then the agitated breast, the heaving sigh, the groaning 
within, will no more annoy or distress them. Let not the child of 
God complain, then, that his final reward is not anticipated and dis- 
tributed to him here in the present world, while he is ina state of 
trial. He must wait until he comes to the goal, before he can wear 
the crown of him who has been victor in the race. He must defer 
his expected laurels until his combat is over. Then he shall receive 
a crown of glory that fadeth not away. 

(24) That the Christian cannot expect a full reward here, the 
apostle goes on most explicitly to declare. Τῇ γὰρ ἐλαίδι ἐσώθημεν, for 
we are saved in hope, i. e., we have obtained salvation, but a part of it 
is only in hope; we have attained a condition in which we indulge the 
hope of a glory that is yet future. ‘This is all which can be rationally 
expected or accomplished in the present life. He had said in the 


ROMANS VII. 25. 377 


preceding verse, that Christians are in the attitude of wazting for 
their filiation. Verse 24 is designed to confirm this; hence the 
γάρ at the beginning of it. The reader should observe, that the Aor. 
ἐσώθημεν 15. qualified in its sense by τῇ ἐλαίδ. We are saved or have 
attained to a state of salvation, says the apostle, yet it is not fully 
and completely so, but is so τῇ ἐλσίδι, ἡ, 6.) it is a salvation of which 
hope is at present a leading constituent. 

Ἔλα)ς δὲ. . . . ἐλπίς, now hope which is seen, is no longer hope ; 
ἃ, @, the object of hope (ἐλπής in the first instance here means this) 
is no longer such, when one attains the actual possession of it. δέ 
orationt continuandee inservit, 1. e., it stands before a clause which is 
designed to continue and illustrate the subject already introduced. 

Ὃ yao... ἐλπίζει; for what one sees, how does he still hope for 
ἐξ That is, what a man has actually attained or come to the enjoy- 
ment of, how can he be said to look forward to it with hope or anti- 
cipation? Γάρ rationem rei dicte reddit, ὃ, ¢., it stands in a clause 
designed to explain or confirm the preceding assertion; for such is 
the nature of the present clause. 

(25) Ei δὲ . . . . ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, but if we hope for that which we do 
not enjoy, then we patiently wait for it. That is, if it be true, as all 
will concede, that in the present life we attain not to our final reward, 
but can be called the heirs of salvation only because we have obtained 
a well-crounded hope of it; if it be so that we cannot rationally ex- 
pect an exemption from trials and troubles here, but must take our 
part in them with all around us; if it be true, also, that a great and 
glorious reward is reserved in heaven for all who endure patiently 
until the end of their probation (and that this is true, the very 
nature that God has given to men, which is here so imperfectly de- 
veloped, and which therefore points to a state of greater perfection, 
satisfactorily shows); then it becomes Christians to endure with all 
patience and meekness the trials and sufferings of the present life. 
Time is short ; eternity is long. Our sufferings are slight and mo- 
mentary, when viewed in a comparative light. Who can place them 
beside that glory, “which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, and of 
which it hath not entered into the heart of man to conceive,” and 
which is to endure as long as the God who bestows it, and yet make 
any serious account of them? Christian brethren, says the apostle, 
let us patiently wait the appointed time of our deliverance. 

The διά before ὑπομενῆς is διά conditionis, i. e., it stands before a 
noun marking the state or condition of those of whom it is said, 
ἀπεκδεχόμεθα. 


878 ROMANS Vill. 90. 


CHAP. VIIE. 26, 27. 


In this our weak and suffering condition, we are greatly aided by the Spirit who dwells in 
us; so that even when we are so much perplexed and distressed that we know not what to ask 
for or what to say in our prayers, our internal sighs which are not uttered by words, and which 
arise from his influence on our souls, are noticed and understood by the Searcher of hearts, avhose 
ears will be open to them. Such is the course of thought in these verses; the natural inference 
from itis: ‘ Christians, be not discouraged, even in your deepest distresses. He who sees in secret, 
counts every groan, hears every sigh, and will be a very present help in time of need.’ 


(26) Such is the general sentiment of the passage. Particular 
words, however, present some difficulties. Ὡσαύτως, in like manner, 
in the very same way. But in what way? Like to what? A diffi- 
cult question. Some critics (Grotius, Koppe, Flatt, and others) 
render ὡσαύτως by preterea, tiberdiess, i. 6.7 moreover, besides. This 
would do well, if philology would allow it. It seems, however, to be 
rather making a new meaning for the word, than explaining the usual 
one. The true answer to the question, ‘ Like to what?’ seems to be 
this; ‘In like manner as hope supports, strengthens, cheers us, and 
renders us patient, so do the influences of the Spirit aid us, in all our 
distresses;’ 7. ¢., as hope aids us amidst all our sufferings and sorrows, 
so does the Spirit likewise. ‘Qeatrwe δὲ καί, and in like manner also, 
or and in like manner moreover. 

Τὸ πνεῦμα, the Spirit. But what spirit? Our own mind? A filial 
spirit? Or the Spirit of God? Each of these methods of exegesis 
has been defended. I was formerly inclined to regard the second 
meaning as the most probable; principally on account of the 27th 
verse. Itis natural to ask: Does not the phrase ὁ ἐρευνῶν τὰς καρδίας, 
designate him who knows the secrets of the human breast? And as 
this same Searcher of hearts is said to know φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος, t. 6.» 
the mind or will of the spirit, does not this mean the same thing as 
τὰς καρδίας, and therefore designate the human mind? One may also 
ask: Where in all the Scriptures is the Spirit of God represented as 
making intercession (ἐντυγχάνει!) for the saints? These difficulties 
have led many to construe πνεῦμα throughout the passage as meaning 
πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας, comp. verse 15. But at present I doubt of this exe- 
gesis; the reasons for this doubt will be specified in the sequel. 

Let the reader now, in the first place, compare πνεῦμα in verses 2, 
4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 28, where it clearly and certainly means the 


ROMANS VIII. 26. τὰ. 


Spirit of God or of Christ: he will then feel the probability, that 
the writer here uses πνεῦμα in the like sense. That Spirit which 
sanctifies Christians, which subdues their fleshly appetites, which 
gives them a filial temper, which bestows a foretaste of future glory, 
—this same Spirit aids Christians in all their sufferings and sorrows’; 
and consequently they ought to endure them with patience. It © 
cannot be denied, that intensity of meaning is given to the whole 
passage by this exegesis. ᾿ 

Συναντιλαμβώνεται, helps; but inthe Greek σύν augments the signi- 
fication, so that one might translate, greatly assists, affords much 
help. ‘The σύν in composition not only denotes con, with, together 
with, &e., but also marks the completeness or entirety of an action ; 
€. 9.) συμπληρύω, to fill entirely full; συνάγνυμι, to dash in pieces ; 
συμπατέω, to crush by treading upon; συντέμνω, to cut in pieces, &C.— 
᾿Ασθενείωαις ἡμῶν, our infirmities, seems to mean our frail, infin, 
afflicted, troubled state; and this accords entirely with the context. 
A., B., C., D., many Cedd. minusce., with many versions and fathers, 
read τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ, in the Dat. singular. Indeed the weight of autho- 
rity seems to be in favour of this reading. 

Τὸ γάρ κι τ. 2. γάρ illustrantis again; for the sequel shows what 
our condition is, and how the Spirit aids us. Τὸ γὰρ... οὐκ οἴδαμεν, 
for we know not that which we should pray for as we ought; 7. @, in 
our perplexities, weaknesses, ignorance, and distresses, we are often 
at a loss what would be best for us, or most agreeable to the wiil of 
God respecting us. Kad) de? the apostle means, that the object for 
which we should pray καθὸ δεῖ 7. e., in accordance with duty, κατὰ τὸ 
ϑέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ (comp. 1 John ν. 14), or in a becoming manner, 15 
frequently unknown to us. Kadd ds7 belongs to or qualifies προσευξώ- 
μεθα. 

In this state, the same Spirit, αὐτὸ τὸ τινεῦμα, the same who sanc- 
tifies us, dwells in us, and helps our infirmities—this same Spirit 
earnestly intercedes for us, ὑπερεντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν; where ὑπέρ incom. 
position with the verb augments the force of it, which I have 
endeavoured to express. 3 

Prayer or supplication, however, made by the Spirit, z. 6.9 by the 
Spirit of God as such and by himself, is not here intended. ‘So the 
sequel clearly shows; viz., the Spirit makes intercession for us ore 
νωγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις, in sighs or groans which are unutterable, i.e. the 
full meaning of which cannot be spoken in words. Or ἀλαλήτοις may 
mean, that which is not uttered, that which is internal, ὦ. ¢., sup- 


3380 ROMANS VIII. 27. 


pressed sighs ; for verbals in -τός may have either a passeve meaning, 
as in this case, or they may designate what may or-can be done, as 
in the other meaning; New Test. Gramm. §82. Note1. Either 
sense is good; and either gives an intense meanmg. In this way 
then the Spirit intercedes for the saints, yiz., by exciting within 
them such longing and high desires for conformity to God, for de- 
liverance from evil, and for the enjoyment of future blessedness, 
that these desires become unutterable, 7. ¢., no language can ade- 
quately express them. What is thus done in the souls of believers 
through the influence of the Spirit, is here attributed to him; 7. 6.» 
he is said to do what they do under his special influence. In accord- 
ance with the idiom of the sacred writers, that is often attributed to 
God, which human agents perform under his oversight, government, 
or aid. 

In accordance with such a sentiment, Fenelon, in his Essay en- 
titled, Que [ Esprit de Dieu enseigne en dedans [That the Spirit 
of God teaches internally], says in a very striking manner: “ The 
Spirit of God is the soul of our soul.” So Augustine, with equal 
correctness and concinnity: “ Non Spiritus Sanctus in semetipso 
apud semetipsum in illa Trinitate gemit; sed in nobis gemit, quia 
gemere nos facit (Tract. VI. in Johan. § 2); that is, the Divine 
Spirit does not groan or intercede in and by himself, as God and 
belonging to the Trinity ; but he mtezcedes by his influence be 
us, and by leading us to aspirations which language cannot express;’ 
a sentiment equally true and striking. 

(27) ‘O δὲ ἐρευνῶν τὰς καρδίας, acommon appellation of God who is 
omniscient ; comp. vii. 9 (10). Jer. xi. 20. Acts 1. 14—-0% τὸ 
φρόνημα τοῦ Πηεύμωτος, knoweth the desire of the Spirit or the mind of 
the Spirit, 7. e., what is sought after, willed, or desired, when these 
στεναγμοὶ ἀλάλητοι excited by him arise. In other words: “ The 
Searcher of hearts does not need that desires should be clothed or 
expressed in language, in order perfectly to understand them and to 
listen to them.” It is not the mind of the Spirit of God, in himself 
considered and as belonging to the Godhead, that the Searcher of 
hearts is here represented as knowing. It is the mind or desire of 
the Spirit as disclosed ἐν στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις τῶν ἁγίων, that the writer 
means to designate. In this way, there is no difficulty in applying 
“νεῦμα to the Spirit of God. The sense is, that God knows the 
mind or desire of the saints, which is prompted or excited by his 
Spirit. 


ROMANS vit. 27. 381 


Or: xara... . ἁγίων, because, or that he intercedes for saints 
agreeably to the will of God. "Oz may be translated because, so far - 
as the word itself is concerned. But the sense is better if we con- 
_strue the clause ὅτι x. τ᾿ 2. as explicative of the preceding assertion. 
Paul frequently adds explicative clauses which begin with ὅτι; ὁ. g., 
1 Cor. iii. 20 al. Meaning: ‘ God knows what the aauttersbls sighs - 
mean.which the Spirit excites in the bosoms of his saints; he knows, 
that aided by his Spirit they make intercession xara Θεόν, i. e., καϑὸ 
δεῖ,---- [Ὁ construe xara Θεόν, to God, as if it were πρὸς Θεόν, haves the 
usus loquendi of the language-forbids, for ἐντυγχάνει κατὰ .... means 
to accuse ; in which case, also, xa-¢ must be followed by the Geni- 
tive. Κατὰ Θεόν, then, must mean secundum Deum, i. 6., κατὰ τὸ 
 ϑέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, comp. 1 John y. 14. So the Syriac version, Chry- 

sostom, Tholuck, Flatt, and others. Comp. for this sense of κατά, 
Rom. vii. 4. 2 Cor. χὶ. 17. Rom. ii.2. Luke ii. 22, 24, 27, 29, 
et al. sepe.—The word ἁγίων is here without the article; and being 
employed as a oun we might naturally expect the article. But 
where particular emphasis or + specification ; is not intended, the article 
may be omitted; N. Test. Gramm. § 90. 4. Note 1. 

In the mode of exegesis adopted above, all difficulties seem to be 
removed, and one is enabled to maintain a uniform and consistent 
meaning of πνεῦμα throughout the whole chapter. 

The Christian who reads this passage with a spirit that responds 
to the sentiment which it discloses, cannot avoid lifting up his soul 
to God with. overflowing gratitude for his mercies. Here we are 
‘poor and wretched and miserableand blindand naked,” and in want 
of all things ; we are crushed before the moth; “ we all do fade asa 
leaf, and the wind taketh us away ;” we are often in distress, in 
darkness, in perplexity, in straits from which we can see no escape, 
1.0 issue; even in far the greater number of cases, we know not what 
will be for our ultimate and highest good, and so “know not what 
we should pray for as we ought;’ but then, the Spirit of the living 
God is present with all the true followers of the Saviour; he excites 
desires in their souls of liberation from sin and present evil, of 
heavenly blessedness and holiness, greater than words can express. 
The soul can only vent itself in sibhae the meaning of which language 
is too feeble to express. Often we do not know enough of the con- 
sequences or designs of present trials and sufferings, even to venture 
on making a definite request with regard to them; because we do 
not know whether relief from them is best or not. The humbl> 


382 ROMANS ΥὙΠῚ. 28. 


Christian, who feels his need of chastisement, will very often be 
brought to such a state. Then what a high and precious privilege | 
it is, that our “ unutterable sighs” should be heard and understood 
by Him who searches our hearts! Who can read this without 
emotion? Such are the blessings purchased for sinners by redeem- 
ing blood! Such the consolations which flow from the throne of 
God, for a groaning and dying world! 


CHAP. VIII. 28—29. 


To crown the whole, the apostle now goes on to assure those to whom he is writing, that 
ell things, 7. e., all the sufferings and sorrows anid trials of the present life, will preve to be instru- 
ments, in the hand of a wise and powerful God and merciful Redeemer, of promoting the final 
and greatest happiness and glory of all true saints. The accomplishment of this end cannot fail. 
The purpose of God in respect to the saints can never be disappointed. Nothing can ever sepa- 
rate them from the care and kindness and affection of the Saviour, who has redeemed them. 
The inference to be drawn from all this, is, that Christians have no reason to despond or . 
to be discouraged, while suffering the evils and trials of life. Their hopes and expectations 
should be elevated above the world, and be in accordance with the glorious inheritance that 
awaits them. . 


(28) Οἴδαμεν δέ we know moreover. Aé oration continuande in- 
servit. What follows here, is in addition to what is like in kind or 
relating to the same subject in the preceding context. 

Πάντα συνεργεῖ all sufferings, sorrows, trials, &c., shall co-operate, 
7. @ mutually contribute or each contributes, for the good, for the 
final and highest good, of those who love God, %. 6... of the saints, of 
irue Christians. So the sequel describes them. Augustine and 
some other fathers suppose sin to be here included in the πάντα. But 
plainly {1.18 was not here in the apostle’s mind. 

Tis .... οὖσιν, to those who are called according to his purpose or 
design. Ἐλητοῖς, in the New Testament, is used drice in the sense 
of invited, bidden, viz., Matt. xx. 16. xxii. 14. In all other cases it 
means not only such as have been invited, but such as have accepted 
the invitation ; 6. g., 1 Cor. i. 2, 24. Jude ver. 1. Rom. i. 6. Rev. xvii. 
14. Itscems, therefore, to be employed as the equivalent of ἔκλεχτος, 
and means a true Christian. Plainly this is the sense in the verse 
before us; for the persons here designated are those who love God.— 
Κατὰ πρόϑεσιν, those who are called or chosen in conformity with, the 


ROMANS Vit. 29, 99 


purpose [of God]. This πρόϑεσις 18 κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν, Romans ix. 11, ὦ, 6.) 
free, without any merit or desert on the part of the sinner, or of 
obligation (strictly speaking) on the part of God; it is the πρόθεσις of 
him who worketh all things after the counsels of his own will, and 


_hath before ordained that Christians should have a heavenly inheri- 


¢ 


tance, Eph. i. 11: it isa πρόθεσις τῶν αἰώνων, an eternal purpose, Eph. 
Hi. 115 or it is a πρόθεσις . . . πρὸ χρόνων. αἰωνίων, a purpose before the 


ancient ages, 7. ¢., before the world began, 2 Tim. 1. 9. That the 


purpose of God is here meant, and not the purpose or will of man 
(as Chrysostom, Theophylact,. Cyril, Pelagius, Suidas, Hammond, 
Le Clerc, and others, have maintained), is rendered entirely clear 
by the sequel, verse 29,seq. See the Lxcursus on this passage. 

(29) "Or: οὕς προέγνω. The course of thought seems to be thus: 
¢ All things must work together for good to Christians—to such as 
are called to the privileges of a filial relation, and were chosen be- 
fore the world began, to be conformed to the image of God and to 
be advanced to a state of glory. The everlasting love and purpose 
of God cannot be disappointed.” "Or: x. τ. A. introduces the reasons, 
why it is certain that all things will work together for the good of 
true Christians. 

Προέγνω, foreknew, or before decrecd or constituted or determined, 
(viz., as xAnro/, elect, saints, chosen, see on ver. 28), a word endlessly 
disputed. But whether theology or philology has been the predomi- 
nating element in the dispute, it is not difficult for an impartial 
reader to decide. The object and argument of an expositor here 
should be philological; he should seek for what the apostle does say, 
not for what he may conjecture he ought to say. 

ΤΙρό (in composition) gives the additional signification of previous 
time, formerly ; the action designated by the verb remaining the 
same as is signified by the simple form of the word. What then 
does γινώσκω mean? It means, (1) 70 know in any manner generally; 


.to know by the aid of any of the bodily senses, by hearing, &e., or 


by experience, trial; Lat. cognoscere, sentire. (2) To be acquainted 


with, to perceive so as fully to apprehend, to take knowledge of, to 


make one’s self acquainted with. (3) To recognise one as a known 
friend, a familiar acquaintance; Matt. vii. 23. Mark vii. 24. 1 Cor. 
vill. 3. Gal. iv. 9. 2 Tim. ii. 19. Heb. xiii. 23. To the same pur- 
pose is the corresponding Hebrew ¥7} employed, ὁ, ¢., it means to 
regard with affection, to treat with favour; 6. g., it is said of God in 
respect to the saints, Ps. i. 6. exliv. 3. Amos. ii. 2. Nah. i. 7; of 


984 ROMANS vVitt. 29. 


men in respect to God, Hos. viii. 2. Ps. xxxvi. 11. ix. 11. Job xviii. 
21. The first and second classes of meaning above given are so 
common, and so easily confirmed by any of the lexicons, that I have 
deemed it superfluous to adduce examples, which every one may find 
in abundance by consulting his lexicon. 

Πιροέγνω then may mean, he before loved, he before regarded with 
ajjection, he before looked on with favour. In this sense many have 
here understood the word; e.g., Origen, Erasmus, Mosheim, Baum- 
garten, E. Schmidius, and generally the Arminians. 

On the other hand; Theophylact, @icumenius, Ambrose, Augus- 
tine, Bucer, Balduin, Hunnius, Calovius, Heumann, and others, 
have construed προέγνω here as meaning he foreknew, understood in 
the literal and primary sense of the word; ὁ, 6.9) say the Lutheran 
commentators in general: ‘ God foreknew that the κλητοῦ would freely 
believe’ In the same way many at the present day construe this 
text. But the question on which all turns, as to this interpretation, 
is: Does the apostle here represent the calling, and justification, and 
elorification of the κλητοί, as the result of God’s love to them, or of 
their love to him? ‘That is, did God bring them by his Spirit into 
a state of grace because they loved him first or before they were 
brought into this state, or did he by his mercy bring them into this 
state so that they might love him? This question is finally and fully 
settled by such texts as 1 John iv. 10,19, John xv. 16. Rom. v. 6— 
10. Jer. xxxi. 3. 2 Tim. 1. 9, οὐ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν--- ἀλλὰ κατὰ πρόϑεσιν 
χαὶ χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσαν... . πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων. It is settled by the 
nature of the case. The Spirit of God “ breathes on the valley of 
dry bones ;” he “quickens those who are dead in trespasses and 
sins;’ he “calls the dead to life;’ he “creates anew in Christ 
Jesus ;” sinners are “ born of the Spirit;” and it is in this way, and 
in this only, that they come to love God; for “the carnal mind is 
enmity against God, and is not subject to his law, nor indeed can 
be;” and that “ which is born of the flesh is flesh.” It is God who 
first loves us (1 John iv. 10,19), before we come to love him. 
There is no setting aside declarations so plain, so full, so often 
repeated as these. 

We cannot embrace that view of σροέγνω, then, which makes the 
manifestation of God’s love to his children to depend on his foresight 
of their meritorious obedience, or their love towards him. It is un- 
doubtedly true, it must be so, that God foresees and perfectly knows 
all the voluntary love and obedience which his children will ever 


ROMANS VHT. 29. 385 


exhibit ; and it is equally certain, that he has before determined to 
reward these in proportion to their desert. But this cannot be the 
ground of his causing them, when they are his enemies and dead in 
trespasses and sins, to become συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ Ὑἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. It 
must for ever remain true, that we are brought “to love him because 
he jirst loved us.” 

It should also be observed, in regard to the exegesis now under 
examination, that it gives a ground or reason of God’s foreknowledge 
in this case, which the text does not give. ‘The text does not say 
why or how God foreknew; but merely that he didso. Of this more 
in the sequel. 

In the sense of No. 3 abov e, viz., that of approving, loving, regard- 
ing with approbation or affection, Ovioed: Martyr, Calvin, and many 
others take πσροέγνω here. But those who embrace this sentiment 
respecting προέγνω, are divided; some saying that God before loved his 
saints, because he foresaw their character and good works; others, 
that out of his mere good pleasure he set his love upon them. In the 
latter way, Calvin, Beza, the Westminster Catechism, and most of 
the Calvinistic writings take it. But our text, it should be observed, 
assigns neither the one reason nor the other; it states the simple fe 
and no more. 

I do not see that any conclusive objections of a philological nature 
can be urged against adopting the sense of before loving or regard- 
ing with affection ; because the like sense of the verbs γινώσχω and Y2 
is common. It is only when the reason for doing this is forced upon 
us, as being disclosed in the text itself, that I should object to such 
an exegesis. 

With Tholuck, however, I ‘heli a sense of προέγνω, different from 
any yet mentioned; and this merely from the philology of the passage. 
It is well known in respect to γινώσκω, that it sometimes means volo, 
constituo mecum, I will, I wish, I determine with myself, I resolve 
or determine or decide. So Rom. vii. 15. So Josephus: ὁ Θεὸς ἔγνω 
τιμωρίσασθαι αὐτούς, God hath determined to punish them, Antiq. 1. 2; 
comp. also Antiq. II. 4, 5 and III. 12, 8. So Psalt. Sal. xvii. 47: 
ἣν ἔγνω ὁ Θεὸς ἀναστῆσαι, which God hath determined to establish. : In 
like manner Plutarch; ἔγνω φυγεῖν ἀποδημία τὴν ὑπόνοιαν, he determined 
to avoid suspicion by going abroad, Lc. ὁ. 3. Polybius: ἐγνωσαν διὰ 
μάχης κρίνειν τὰ πράγματα, they have determined to decide matters by 
appeal to arms, V. 82. In Esop’s Fables, such a meaning of ἔγνω is 
very common. 2B 


386 ROMANS VIII. 29. 


‘That προγινώσκω may have the like sense, is clear from 1 Pet. i. 20; 
where σπροεγνωσμένου πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (said of Christ) means plainly 
before decreed, before constituted or determined. In the like sense 
(as many think) it is used in Rom. xi. 2, God hath not cast away 
his people ὃν προέγνω, whom he chose to be hin or constituted his, viz., 
before the foundation of the world; comp. 1 Pet. i 20. Eph. iii. 11. 
2 Tim. i. 9. And in accordance with this σρόγνωσις is used; 6. g., 
Acts ii. 24, where it is the equivalent of ὡρισμένη βουλή. So also in 
1 Pet. i. 2; and it is the same as πρόθεσις, in 2 Tim. i. 9. Lph. iii. 11. 

In this view of the subject, ὃν προέγνω is to be regarded as a resump- 
tion of the idea expressed by κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς in ver. 28, 7. 6..) those 
who by his purpose were xAnro/, those whom σπροέγνω, t. e., whom he 
had before resolved or determined should be his xAnroi—those προώρισε 
κ᾿ τ A. That πρό in composition here means before the foundation of 
the world, may be seen by comparing 1 Pet. i. 20. 2 Tim.i. 9. Eph. 
iii. 11. 

The objections to this view of the subject do not seem to be 
weighty ; and they lie equally against translating προέγνω, he foreknew 
or he loved before. If God did aetually foreknow who were to be 
his χλητοί, then it was not uncertain whether they would be or not. 
If he tovep them before the foundation of the world, then it must 
have been that he did foreknow that they would be his xAzro/, and 
this again makes the same certainty. If he determined before the 
foundation of the world that they should be his xAyro/, then again 
the same certainty existed, and no more. Nay evenif we could abs- 
tract God and his purposes from the whole, and suppose the order 
of the universe to move on without him in its constituted way, the 
same certainty would,still have existed. I do not see, therefore, in 
what way we can avoid the conclusion, that certainty must exist, by 
the divine purpose and counsel, in regard to the κλητοί---ἃ certainty 
not merely that they will be saved, provided they believe and 
obey and persevere in so doing, but a certainty that the κατὰ πρόθεσιν 
κλητοί Will be brought to believe and obey and persevere, and will 
therefore obtain salvation; for such is the manifest tenor of the 
whole passage. 

Still, all those of any party in theology who draw from προέγνω the 
conclusion that God /fore-ordained or chose or loved, out of his mere 
good pleasure, on the one hand; or from his foresight of faith and 
good works on the other; deduce from the text what is not in it, for 
it says neither the one nor the other. It avers merely that the xa “ἃ 


ROMANS VT. 29. 387 


τρόθεσιν χλητὸΐ were fore-known, or fore-loved, or fore-determined. 
Construe this in whatever way you will, if there be any objection 
against the one, there is the same against the other, unless you 
remove it by adding a condition which the apostle has not added. 
It lies on the face of the whole paragraph, that certainty of future 
glory to all the κλητοί Θεοῦ, is what the writer means to affirm ; and 
to affirm it by showing that itis a part of the everlasting purposes of ὁ 
God. 

Kal «προώρισε, he also fore-ordained, predestinated, decreed before, 
viz., before the foundation of the world. So, clearly, the word is used 
in Acts iv. 28. 1 Cor. ii. 7, expressly πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων. I take the πρό in 
composition with the several verbs here, to have the same meaning 
as in πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων. It does not mean simply that God determined 
or decreed this or that before men individually came into existence, 
but before the world began. Eph.i. 5,11. Bretschneider (Lex.) 
says, that the decree here has respect merely to the external privi- 
leges of the gospel, and not to eternal salvation; which is directly 
contradicted by 1 Cor. 11. 7----εἰς δόξαν ἡμῶν; by Eph. 1. ὅ----εἰς υἱοθεσίαν 
διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ... ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν... and verse 11], ἐν 
ᾧ ἐκληρώθημεν, προορισθέντες κατὰ πρόθεσιν x τ. r. In like manner, 
the whole tenor of the passage before us clearly contradicts this; for 
here the subject is final and future glory, not merely present oppor- 
tunities and external advantages for acquiring Christian knowledge. 
The only remaining passage where the word is used (Acts iv. 28), 
employs it in an entirely different connection, but with the plain 
sense of before decreed. ‘The sense of the whole is: ‘ Those who are 
κλητοί according to the purpose of God, those whom he determined 
from everlasting to save, he did at the same time predestinate to be 
conformed to the image, &e. 

Συμμόρφους is here used as a noun, having the Gen. after it; if em- 
ployed asan adjective, it would requirethe Dative; συωμόρφους. .. αὐτοῦ, 
tu be of the like form with the image of his own Son, i. e., to be like 
him, to resemble him in a moral respect. God has not then (as is often 
objected to the doctrine of predestination) decreed that men should 
be saved whether they be sinful or holy, ὦ. e., without any regard to 
the character which they may have; but he has determined that all 
who are conducted to glory, must resemble in a moral respect him 
who leads them to glory, ὁ. ¢., the great Captain of their salvation. 
Toconstrue συμμόρφους as Erasmusand many other commentators have 
done, viz., as the subjective Acc., ἡ. 6.5) as designating only those whom 


388 ROMANS VIII. 30: 


God fore-ordained and the character which they possessed, instead of 
designating by συμμόρφους the predicate Acc., i. e., the character which 
God designed they should sustain, is an evident violation of the laws 
of language here; for the inquiry of course arises, To what did he 
fore-ordain the συμμόρφους ΤῸ which no answer is then given. We 
must therefore make the predicate Accusative here, and understand 
the phrase as meaning συμμόρφους εἶνάι. 

Εἰς τὸ εἶναι. . . ἀδελφοῖς, that he [the Son] should be the first-born 
among many brethren ; ἃ. ¢., that the Saviour should, in his office as 
Lord of all and Head over all things for his church, still sustain a 
fraternal relation to those whose leader he is, they being made to 
resemble him by being made partakers of the like qualities or affee- 
tions; comp. Heb. ii. 11—18. ‘The point of likeness, however,.is 
not here stated; for the apostle does not say, whether believers are 
to resemble the Saviour in their moral qualities, their sufferings, or 
their glorification. But nothing forbids our extending the idea to all 
these particulars; and the context invites us todo so. For the sense 
of πρωτότοκος, comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27, (28). Ex. iv. 22. Heb. i. 6, Col. 
i 16; 

(30) οὖς δὲ προώρισε, and whom he fore-ordained or predestinated, 
viz., to be conformed to the image of his Son. In other words, 
whom he before determined to regenerate and sanctify, to purify 
from sin, and to make holy in some measure as the Saviour is holy. 

Τούτους καὶ ἐχάλεσε, the same did he also call. Isthis the so named 
effectual calling; or does it mean nothing more than the external 
invitation of the gospel, the moral suasion of it addressed to the 
heart and understanding of sinners? That the external call is some- 
times designated by the word καλέω, is clear from such passages as 
Matt. ix. 13. Mark ii. 17. Luke v. 82. But the word καλέω is usually 
applied to effectual calling, 1. e., such a calling as ensures acceptance. 
In such a way κλῆσις and κλητός are, beyond all doubt, commonly ap- 
plied to effectual calling or election. So here ἐκάλεσε manifestly 
means such a calling as proceeds from the πρόθεσις, from the fore- 
knowledge and from the predetermination of God in respect to the 
objects of it, and which is followed by justification or pardon of sin 
and final glory. If this be not effectual calling, what is? Such a 
call as proceeds from the everlasting purpose and love of God, and 
ends in heavenly glory, is something more than mere external mo- 
tive or suasory argument simply addressed to the mind. 

Τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν, the same he also justified, i. e. pardoned, 


ROMANS Vill. 31, 32. 389 


acquitted, absolved from the penalty of the divine law, accepted and 
treated as righteous.— Ou dz. . . . ἐδόξασε, and those whom he justi- 
fied, the same he also glorified; the work, begun in accordance with 
his everlasting love and purpose, he carries through and consum- 
mates by bestowing endless glory in heaven upon the κατὰ πρόϑεσιν 
“AUTO. : 
How then can the mere external invitations and privileges of the 
gospel be here meant? Is it indeed true, that al/to whom these are 
extended are xAyro/in the higher sense here meant? Whether it be 
true that all who hear the gospel will be saved, may be determined 
from such texts as John xv. 22— 24. ix. 41. ii. 19. Heb. 1]. 1—3. 
iii. 18, 19. vi. 4—6. x. 26—30. Mark xvi.16. It may with equal 
certainty be determined from verses 1—11 of the present chapter, 
where the distinction between σαρκικοί and πνευματικοί is broad and 
clear. If now all who enjoy the external privileges of the gospel, are 
not χλητοί or κεκλημένοι ἴῃ the sense of the present passage, then must 
it be true, that such only as are conformed to the image of Christ 
will be saved. And that all who enjoy the external privileges of the 
gospel are conformed to the image of Christ, will not, I trust, be as- 
serted by any considerate person. See Excursus on this passage. 

It should be noted also, that Paul uses the Aorist here in all cases; 
as well in respect to future glorification (ἐδόξασε), as in regard to pre- 
destination and justification. This is altogether in the manner of 
the Hebrew prophets, who usually speak of future events that are 
certain, as events which have already past. The obvious solution of 
this is, that in the knowledge and purpose of God, things future are 
like those which are past as to the certainty that they will take place. 
The use of the Aorist indicates the certainty of the writer’s mind in 
regard to such things. 

(31) Ti... . ταῦτα; what shall we say in respect to these things? 
ὃ, €., What shall we say, now, in reference to the facts and principles 
which I have just mentioned, viz., the purposes of God in respect to 
the κλητοί, and the manner in which he deals with them? The sequel 
answers this question; the sum of which is, that, ‘ such being the 
purposes of God, none of the sorrows or troubles of life, yea none of 
the spiritual enemies and opposers of the children of God, will be 
able to disappoint or frustrate their hopes.’ 

Ei ὁ Θεὸς . . . ἡμῶν; If God be on our side, ὦ ¢., espouse our cause. 
who can contend with success against him? ; 

(32) “Os γέ x -. λ., even he who spared not his own son. Yé qui- 


390 ROMANS VIII. 32. 


dem, German eben; “ y:....vim verbi auget, i. 6.) intensiva est.”— 
"Id/ov, his own, his genuine, in opposition to or in distinction from υἱοῦ 
Jerod, an adopted son, for such believers are; e.g., Abraham prepared 
co offer up Ais own son as a sacrifice, instead of selecting a suppositi- 
tious or adopted heir. Yet by own we are not here to understand 
a son more humano, but a Son μονογενής in a sense stated by Luke i. 
35; Son being evidently used here not for the divine Logos as such, 
but for the Messiah clothed with our nature; as the sequel plainly 
shows. 

Οὐκ ἐφείσατο, he spared not, t.e., he did not withhold; a λιτότης, 7. 9.» 
a negative form of expression which has an affirmative meaning, 
equivalent to ἐχαρίσατο, he gave. So the sequel; dar’... . αὐτόν, 
but gave him up for us all, i. e., gave him up to suffering and death, 
devoted him to be a sacrifice for our sins; comp. Johniii. 16. Luke 
xxii. 19, Gali. 4. The word παρέδωκεν is stronger than Zdwzxe, 
which is used in these cited passages. It means delivered over, viz., 
to death. Πάντων is plainly the same here as ἡμεῖς, 7. 6.7 all Chris- 
tians. | 

Πῶς ody/.... χαρίσεται, how [can it be] that with him he will not 
also bestow all things upon us? That is: ‘How can we possibly ἡ 
suppose, that, after having bestowed the greatest of all gifts upon us, 
viz., his own Son, he will refuse to bestow those gifts which are 
smaller and less costly? 

Tholuck says here, that “the apostle has assured Christians [in 
the paragraph before us|, that nothing shall hurt them unless they 
injure themselves.” And again: “If the Calvinistic idea [of per- 
severance] had been intended to be conveyed [by the apostle], he 
must also have said, that neither apostasy nor sin would, under any 
circumstances, have rendered their calling uncertain or disappointed 
it.’ That this may be rendered uncertain, he thinks is shown by 
2 Pet. i. 10. 

But if exhortations, commands, and threatenings of a most awful 
nature, addressed to Christians, are to be considered as implying an 
uncertainty whether the work which God has begun in Christians 
will be completed; then the Bible is indeed full of proof that they 
may fall away and finally perish ; for it is filled with passages of such 
3, nature. Above all does the epistle to the Hebrews abound in them. 
But while it is impossible to deny this, or even to deny that if 
Christians were left to themselves they would fall away every day 
and hour of their lives, one may still, without any just cause of reproach, 


ROMANS VIII. 32. 391 


be permitted to believe with the apostle, that “whom God calls, he 
justifies and glorifies ;” he may believe, with the same apostle, that 
“if Christ died for us while we were yet sinners, while we were 
ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἀσεβεῖς, MUCH MORE, being justified [7. e., obtaining pardon 
through his blood], shall we be saved from wrath,” Rom. ν. 6—10. 
How can we then put a construction so frigid on this most animated - 
and energetic passage which is now before us? ‘The purposes of 
God,’ says the apostle, ‘ will not be disappointed in bringing his elect 
to glory. Why? ‘Because, since God hath given us his own Son— 
the greatest possible gift—to redeem them from sin, therefore their 
redemption remaineth not uncertain, but will be accomplished.’ This 
reasoning we can see and feel. But how is it with the exegesis of 
Tholuck? ‘God will save you from the power of external causes of 
disappointment, if you only take care yourselves of the internal ones.’ 
Indeed! But I have great difficulty in finding the consolation or 
assurance which I need, in such a declaration as this. It is offering 
me only a single drop of water, when I am ready to faint with thirst 
and need a copious draught. ‘Ten thousand thousand enemies with- 
out are not half so strong as the one within; and if God’s gift of his 
own Son has not secured sanctifying and restraining grace for his 
children, which shall enable them to ‘crucify the old man with his 
lusts and to put on the new man,’ then is the work not only incom- 
plete, but.it will most certainly fail of being finally accomplished. 
The world and the devil would have little influence over us, indeed, 
were our hearts altogether right toward God ; and certain it is, that 
all other combats are mere skirmishes, compared with the warfare 
that is going on within us by reason of our internal enemy, 7. é., a cor- 
rupt heart. But did not Christ die to.redeem us from the dangers of 
this most powerful of all enemies, as well as from other dangers? If 
not, then we may abandon all hopes which the gospel inspires, and 
give ourselves up, after all, for lost. But no,No! This exegesis does 
not meet the object which the apostle has in view. It is and must 
be true, that “if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God 
by the death of his Son, MUCH MORE, being reconciled, we shall be 
saved by his life.” Rom. v. 10. 

But all this purpose (which belongs only to the counsels and mercy 
of God) does not hinder Paul, nor any other sacred writer, from 
reproving, warning, and slooakdatsizie Christians, just as 1. they were 
liable, every day and hour of their lives, to fall away and to lose the 
glorious reward of the saints. Jn themselves considered they are 


392 ROMANS Vill. 33, 34. 


liable to this; and God employs the very means in question in order 
to preserve them against apostasy. Thus, while we admit that the 
promises of Christ will not fail, nor the efficacy of atoning blood be 
frustrated ; while we believe that “where God has begun a good 
work, he will carry ἐξ into execution (ἐπιτελέσει) until the day of Jesus 
Christ” (Phil. i. 6); we admit in the fullest manner the importance 
_ and duty of warning, reproving, exhorting, and threatening Chris- 
tians, just as we should do were there no direct assurances that 
“whom God calls he justifies, and whom he justifies he glorifies.” 
We admit all this, because the sacred writers evidently admit it, and 
write constantly in a manner that accords with this admission. 

(33) Tis . . . ««Θεοῦ; Who shall-bring an accusation against the 
elect of God? That is: ‘Who shall prefer an accusation against 
them, of crimes that would occasion their condemnation, when they 
come before the tribunal of God?’ ᾿Εχλεχτῶν, Heb. 13, 123, 1973, 
chosen, dear, beloved, precious ; comp. 1 Pet. 11. 9; Luke xxii. 35. 
1 Pet. i. 1. Matt. xxiv. 22. 31. Mark xiii. 20. Luke xviii. 7. Col. iii. 
12. Tit. 1. 1. Rev. xvii. 14; also Matt. xx. 16. xxii. 14 (where ἐχλεχτοῖ 
is used in distinction from xAyro/). That ἐκλεκτῶν, however, here 
means something more than merely ἀγαπητοί, may be seen from com- 
paring ver. 28 above—zara πρόθεσιν... xAgrofand 1 Pet. i. 1, 2, 
EXAEXTOIG . . .-. κατὰ πρόγνωσιν Θεοῦ Πατρός. 

Θεὸς ὁ δικ΄«ἰῶν, it is God who justifieth. So I prefer to render and 
to point it, viz., by making this phrase answer to the preceding 
question. So Luther, Tholuck, our English version, and most com- 
mentators. On the other hand, Augustine, Erasmus, Locke, Schott- 
gen, Griesbach, Knapp, Reiche, and others, put an interrogation 
point after δικαιῶν, and likewise after all the succeeding clauses; with 
diminished emphasis, as it seems to me, and certainly with no great 
probability; for how can we well suppose that seventeen successive 
questions are here put, without any answer or intervening matter? 
as Dr. Knapp’s and Griesbach’s pointing represents them to be. Θεὸς 
ὁ δικαιῶν means, it is God who acquits, pardons, forgives the sins σῶν 
ἐχλεκτῶν. Now as God is the supreme and final judge, how can any 
accusation against them occasion their condemnation ? 

(34) Τίς ὁ κατακρίνων; Who shall condemn or be the condemner ? 
i. é., who shall pass sentence of condemnation? God acquits; can 
any besides him condemn? No; Christ has prevented all condem- 
nation by his death: Χριστὸς é ἀποθανών, t. e. his death having made 
expiation for the sins of believers, no sentence of condemnation can 


ROMANS vill. 35, 36. 393 


now be passed. [1 construe Χριστὸς ὁ ἀποθανών as an answer to the 
preceding question; so Tholuck and Flatt. 

Μᾶλλον δὲ... ἡμῶν, yea rather, who is also risen, who moreover ἐς 
at the right hand of God, and maketh intercession for us ; ἡ, ¢., Christ 
not only died to make atonement for our sins, but he is risen from 
the dead, and is exalted to the throne of Majesty in the heavens, in 
order that he may complete the glorious work which he began by 
his death. Inregard to the phrase ἐν δεξιῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, see my Comm. 
on Heb. 1. 3.— Εντυγχάνει conveys the general sense of aiding, 
assisting, managing one’s concerns for his advantage, &c.; comp. 
Heb. vii. 25. ix. 24. 1 John ii. 1. In construing the passage in 
this way, one must remove the interrogation points after the respec- 
tive clauses, and substitute a comma after the first and second, and 
a period after the third. 

(35) Tis . . . « Σριστοῦ; Who shall separate us from the love of 
Christ? 1. e., from that love which he cherishes for us: for so the 
tenor of the passage- plainly demands that we should construe it. 
Calvin remarks on τίς here (instead of </), that the apostle uses τίς 
because he considers all creatures and trials here as so many aihlete, 
striving against the efforts of Christians. 

Θλίψις; 3 ἢ στενοχωρία, ἢ. διωγμός ; ἃ. 6.» shall veration from without, 
or anxiety from within, or persecution by the enemies of the Chris- 
tian religion, effect a separation from the love of Christ? Θλίψις is 
strictly applicable to any strait or pressure which comes from cir- 
cumstances, t. e., from external causes; στενοχωρία (lit. narrowness of 
place) is applied more especially to anxiety of mind; διωγμός is sufii- 
ciently plain, as it obviously designates distresses arising from the 
rage and malice of persecutors. All three words together designate 
intensely the general idea of trouble or distress. 

Bodily sufferings and dangers next follow; for Christians, who 
live in periods of persecution, must of course be peculiarly exposed 
to these. Famine and nakedness are the natural result of being 
driven from home, and made to wander in deserts and desolate biker: 
Peril and sword are necessarily connected with the bitter hostility 
of persecution. 

(36) The quotation here comes from Ps. xliy. 23 (Sept. xlii. 22), 
and is applied to the state of Christians in the apostle’s times, as it 
was originally to those whom the Psalmist describes ; in other words, 
the apostle describes the state of suffering Christians, by the terms 


804 ROMANS VIII. 37, 38. 


which were employed in ancient days to describe the suffering people 
of God.— Ολην τὴν ἡμέραν, pin-o3, continually, unremittingly. 
᾿Ελογίσθημεν ὡς πρόβατα σφαγῆς, we are counted, t. 6.5) we are reckoned, 
regarded, dealt with, as sheep for the slaughter, or we are killed as 
slaughter-sheep, i. e., unremittingly and without mercy. 

(37) Αλλά, but, still, i. e., notwithstanding these severe pressures 
and trials.—’Ey τούτοις πᾶσιν, tn all these, viz., all these sufferings and 
sorrows.— Ὑπερνικῶμεν, we are more than conquerors, an intensive and 
powerful form of expression, used with great appropriateness and 
significancy here.— Asa... . ἡμᾶς, 1. e., through Christ who loved us, 
viz., in consequence of the strength and courage which he ἜΡΟΝ 
eg Phil. iv. 13. 

(38) The γάρ here stands as ἃ reason for the assertion that we 
are more than conquerors. ‘It must be so,’ says Paul, ‘for nothing 
can separate us from the love of Christ.’ Θάνατος. . . . ζωή, death, 
here seems plainly to mean, a violent death by the hands of persecu- 
tors. Zw, on the other hand, seems to be~life on condition of 
recanting a profession of the Christian religion. It was customary 
with persecutors, in order to win Christians over to heathenism, to 
terrify with threats.of death in case they persevered in their pro- 
fession ; and also to allure with promises of life, in case they abjured 
it. To this usage the words ϑάνατος and ζωή here very naturally 
refer. If any one choose to give the words a more extensive mean- 
ing, and to regard them as equivalent to saying, that there is nothing 
in death itself or in life, which will separate, &., there can be no 
valid objection to this. 

Οὔτε ἄγγελοι, οὔτε ἀρχαὶ. . . . οὔτε δυνάμεις, neither angels nor prin- 
cipalities, nor powers. ‘The separation of δυνάμεις here from ἀρχαΐ, 
by an intervening clause, has been a matter of difficulty among 
critics of all ages. But as this separation does in fact exist in the 
best manuscripts, and in the Coptic, Armenian, and Syriac versions, 
we are obliged, as critics, to receive it as it stands, and to interpret 
it in the best manner we can. 

The principal difficulty has arisen from the supposition, that duvd- 
peg Toustzhave*been intended by the writer here to designate an 
order of angels, either good or bad. ‘This supposition was natural, 
because we find words of the same and the like kind, elsewhere 
ranged together to designate such classes or orders; 6. g., Eph. i. 21, 
oo. ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως. Col. i. 16, εἴτε θρόνοι, εἴτε κυριότητερ, 


ROMANS Vill. 38 395 


εἴτε ἀρχαί, εἴτε ἐξουσίαι, 1 Pet. 11. 22, ἀγγέλων, καὶ ἐξουσίων, καὶ δυναμέων. 
The Seventy often render §23, (exercitus) by δύναμις. And this 
seems to give us a key to the meaning of the word, when it is 
applied to the angels. However, in the passages just cited, different 
ranks or orders of angels would seem to be designated. Is this in 
accordance with the Jewish usus loquendi ? 

So far as we can gather, from the Old Testament and from the 
Rabbins, what this usage was, we may answer in the affirmative 
Thus in Dan. xii, 1, Michael is called the great prince. In Isaiah 
vi. 1, seq., the Seraphim are represented, as presence-angels (so to 
speak) of Jehovah. In Matt. xvui. 10, the guardian-angels of little 
children are also represented, by our Saviour, as the presence-angels 
of Jehovah. And with regard to the Rabbins, it is well-known that 
they made a great many different orders of angels; 6. g., 0°13, DBS 
Day, Dery, * pxnbisn 22, DDY Dw PAR, DU; and also OW, 
D221 τὰ DNDD, ὃς Oxy κυριότητες, ἀρχαΐ, and θρόνοι. 

From all vos it appears, that angels, and principalities, and powers 
correspond somewhat exactly to the Jewish orders of angels as occa- 
sionally reckoned; and that, so far as the possibility of meaning is 
here concerned, there lies no difficulty in the way of applying these 
three words to angels. Nay, we may advance still farther, and say 
that in respect to ἀρχαί at least, it is quite improbable that it should 
haye been intended to designate magistrates of any kind. Αγγελοι 
and ἀρχαΐ may very naturally be taken as designating angels and 
archangels ; comp. Jude verse 9. 1 Thess. iv. 16. Dan. x. 13. xii. 1. 
If we understand here these two great divisions of angels, it will be 
in accordance with the usus loqguendi of the Old Testament. The 
fact that ἄγγελοι and ἀρχαΐ τ joined together by juxta-position, ren- 
ders it probable that they belong to the same category of meaning; 
for so words of this class are commonly employed. 

But allowing this, are good or evil angels here meant? That 
evil angels were also distributed by the Jews into classes, is as clear 
as that good angels were classified; ὁ. g., Eph. vi. 12. 1 Cor. xv. 24. 
Col. ii. 15, where they are called ἀρχαί καὶ ἐξουσίαι, and in 2 Pet. ii. 4. 
they are also called ἄγγελο. Moreover Satan is styled ὁ ἄρχων, Matt. 
ix. 34, xi. 24. John xii 31. xiv. 30. xvi. 11. Eph. ii. 2, which im- 
plies precedence, i. ¢., rank among evil angels. The passage in Eph. 
vi. 12 seems to be most direct to our purpose, where the apostle 
represents Christians as in violent contest σρὸς τὰς ἄρχας καί πρᾶςτας 
ἐξουσίας. So in the verse before us, I understand the apostle as avers 


396 ROMANS VIII. 39. 


ring, that neither angels nor archangels with whom we are contest- 
ing, ὦ, e., neither the inferior evil spirits, nor Satan himself (or it 
may be, Satan and others of similar rank), shall be able, by all their 
assaults and machinations, to separate true Christians from the love 
of their Saviour. Tholuck supposes the good angels to be meant 
here; but how can those, “ who are sent forth to minister to such as 
are the heirs of salvation” (Heb. i. 14), be well supposed to be the 
opposers and enemies of Christians? Accordingly, with Flatt, I un- 
derstand ἄγγελοι and ἀρχαί of evil spirits. 

Δυνάμεις appears not to be associated in meaning with ἄγγελοι and 
ἀρχαί, because it is not associated with them by juxta-position; for 
it has juxta-position in all other instances where it means angels. I 
must interpret it, therefore, as designating magistrates, civil powers, 
viz., persecuting kings and princes. That δύναμις means auctoritas, 
imperium, is beyond all doubt; see Luke iv. 36. Acts iv. 7. 1 Cor. v. 
4, Rev. xiii. 2; also Rey. iv. 11. v. 12. vii. 12. xii. 10. And that the 
abstract sense may become concrete, 7. ¢., that δύναμις may designate 
those persons who are clothed with civil power, is clear from 1 Cor. 
xv. 24, Eph. i. 21, as also from comparing its synonyme ἔξουσαΐ, in 
Rom. xiii. 1—4. 

Οὔτε ἐνεστῶτα οὔτε μέλλοντα, neither the present nor the future; %. 6.» 
neither any objects of the present time nor of the future. The 
apostle, after having mentioned particular things in the preceding 
context, here comes to the generic ideas of time, including of course 
all occurrences that take place in it; and in the next clause he seems 
to predicate that of space or place, which he here asserts of time. 

(39) οὔτε ὕψωμα οὔτε βάθος, lit. neither height nor depth. But a 
great variety of explanations have been given to these words; 6. g. 
Origen: ‘ Evil spirits in the air and in hades.’ Ambrose: ‘ Neither 
high and haughty speculation [in doctrine], nor deep sins.’ Augus- 
tine: ‘Idle curiosity about thiags above us and below us.’ Melanc- 
thon: ‘ Heretical speculation of the learned, and gross superstition of 
the vulgar, &e.’ So likewise: ‘ Honour and dishonour,’ ‘ high place 
and low place,’ ‘ happiness and misery,’ ‘ the elevation of Christians 
on the cross, and the submersion of them in the sea,’ have all had 
their advocates. The meaning happiness or misery, honour or dis- 
honour, isa possible one; but the animated and glowing spirit of the 
whole passage naturally leads the mind to expect something more 
elevated than this. "Yo; may mean heaven; so 51%, and so ὕψος 
in Luke i. 78. Eph. iv. 8. As to Sddog, it has been taken to mean 


ROMANS IX. 1. 397 


the earth, and Eph. iv. 9 is appealed to as sustaining this interpre- 
tation. But Ps. cxxxix. 15, 78 MVNA, the lower parts of the earth, 
τὰ βάθη τῆς γῆς (comp. Eph. iv. 9), would be a more apposite appeal, 
inasmuch as here the meaning plainly is, earth or secret recesses of 
the earth. On the whole, however, βάθος (as the antithesis of ὕψωμα) 
would more appropriately designate the under-world, A8Y, dang, 
ἄβυσσος. ‘Thus understood, the sentiment of the apostle ends in a 
climax; viz., neither heaven, nor hell, z. ¢., neither the world above, 
nor the world below, οὔτε rig κτίσις ἑτέρα, nor any other ercated thing. 
The whole summed up together, and understood after the Hebrew 
manner of speaking, stands thus: ‘The universe shall not be able to 
separate Christians from the love of Jesus, who died for them;’ hea- 
ven above and Sheol below, and other created things constituting, 
in the language of Scripture, the universe. I prefer, however, the 
simple meaning above and below, 2. e., no time and no space can 
separate us, &c.; or no period of time and no place can occasion the 
disappointment of our hopes. 

This is, indeed, “an anchor sure and stedfast, entering into that 
within the vail ;” A BLESSED, CHEERING, GLORIOUS HOPE, WHICH 
ONLY THE GOSPEL AND ATONING BLOOD CAN INSPIRE. 


CHAP. IX. 1—383. 


Wits the eighth chapter concludes what may be appropriately termed the doctrinal part of 
our epistle. What follows, is. either by way of forestalling or of removing objections, or of justi- 
fying what has been said; or else in the way of practical exhortation and caution. In previous 
and different parts of the epistle, the apostle had already advanced sentiments on the subject of 
salvation by grace—a salvation proffered in the same.manner and on the same terms to Gentile 
as well as Jew—which he. well knew! would be very obnoxious to many of his kinsmen after the 
flesh, not excepting some of those who. by profession were converts to the Christian religion. In 
chapters ii. and iii., he had formally and at length laboured to show, that the Jews were not 
only in a’state of condemnation by the divine law, but even more guilty than the Gentiles; and 
this, because they had enjoyed greater religious privileges. At the close of chap. iii. he had come 
out fully and plainly with the declaration, that God is the God of the Gentiles as really and truly 
as of the Jews; and in the succeedir.g chapter, he had laboured to show that such was the prin- 
ciple or doctrine which is taught in the Old Testament Scriptures themselves. “The seed of 


998 ROMANS Ix. 1. 


Abraham,” in the highest, and noblest, and only really important sense of the phrase, means his 
spiritual seed; which comprises all who imitate the faith of Abrabam, and like him believe im- 
plicitly in the divine declarations. P ; 

In chap. v. the apostle had implicitly justified the extension of the gospel privileges and bles- 
sings to all men indiscriminately, inasmuch as all were affected by the fall of Adam their common 
progenitor. Then, in chapters vi.—viii. he had shown that Christ and his grace are the only 
effectual ground of our sanctification as well as justification ; that all objection to the scheme of 
grace on the ground that it will encourage sin, not only is destitute of foundation, but that the 
sinner has no hope of resisting’sin with success, but through the grace of the gospel; and, finally 
that the sanctification of believers will issue in their salvation, with the same certainty as their 
justification does. 

But Low could the Jew, accustomed as he was to pride himself in his descent from Abraham, 
to regard God as his peculiar and covenant God, and to expect acceptance in consequence of his 
lineage and of the peculiar favours which had been shown to the Hebrew nation—how could he 
receive with approbation a doctrine, which not only went to prostrate all the hopes that he had 
cherished of pre-eminence in this world, and of happiness in the world to come, and to place the 
very heathen on a level with himself, but which even advanced still farther, and made him more 
guilty than the heathen, and consequently involved him in higher condemnation, because he had 
sinned against peculiar light:and love? Nay, the very privileges, which had been the ground 
of his greatest confidence that he must be regarded with divine approbation and entitled to the 
favour of God, had become, according to the representation of the apostle, the occasion of his 
peculiar and aggravated condemnation. 

The apostle well knew, that the haughty spirit of his countrymen could not easily brook all 
this. He expected they would accuse him of having become alienated from his kinsmen after 
the flesh, and partial to the Gentiles, since he was an apostle to them. It is evidently with such 
anticipations, that he wrote the chapter now before us. For he begins this by a most solemn 
profession or declaration of his sincere and urdent affection for his own nation. He protests 
against the idea, that in declaring God to be the God of the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, he has 
therefore abjured every kind of pre-eminence to his own people. He allows that they have en- 

joyed special and distinguished external privileges ; above all, that the Messiah himself has come 
from the midst of them, verses 2—5. He then proceeds to shew, that God in selecting the heirs 
of his grace where he pleases, é. 6., making the Gentiles the kata πρόθεσιν κλητοί as well as Jews 
—in doing all this, he had violated no promise. His word οὐκ ἐκπέπτωκε (ver. 6), ὃ, 6., his promise 
made to Abraham and his seed is not frustrated or annulled, because he has given up unbelieving 
Jews to perish, and granted to believing Gentiles the privilege of being called the sons of God. 
God has always exercised the right of choosing the recipients of his favours, when and where he 
pleases ; as the Jewish Scriptures themselves do testify. Abraham, for example, had several 
children; but in Isaac only was his seed called, verses 7—9. To Isaac two sons were born, 
Esau and Jacob; yet Esau was rejected and Jacob received; and the decision respecting this 
was made even before they were born, vers. 10,14. God’s declaration to Moses, and his dealings 
with Pharaoh, exhibit the same truth in a striking manner, verses 15—18. All objection to this 
on the ground of partiality or injustice, is without any good support ; inasmuch as the sovereign 
Lord of the universe has a perfect right to dispose of his own as seems good in his sight, verses 
19, 20. He does injustice to none ; for those whom he passes by, are left to the course of justice 
and equity, vers. 21—23. The Hebrew Scriptures have not only displayed, in this way, God's 
sovereignty in his dealings with his people, but they also contain express declarations that the 
Gentiles shall be brought into the church and become the children of God, vers. 24—26. Equally 
certain is it, that they predict the unbelief and rejection of the natural descendants of Abraham, 
verses 27—29. Finally, the apostle sums up the whole matter in discussion, by declaring that 
‘ the Gentiles are admitted to the gospel privilege of justification by faith, but that the Jews in 
general remain in a state of unbelief and rejection, because Christ crucified is to them a 
stumbling-block, and none but believers on him can be saved,’ vers. 30—33. 

It is in this way that the apostle justifies what he had already advanced respecting the Jews 
and Gentiles; and in particular what he had said, in the eighth chapter, about the highest 
blessings of the gospel being bestowed on the κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοί. The amount of the justifi- 
cation is this: ‘God has always dealt in the like manner by his people. The Old Testament 


Ee νι σῪ 


ROMANS ΙΧ, 1. 399 


is full of the same doctrine, or it exhibits facts which illustrate and confirm it. It contains pre- 
dictions concerning the very things of which the Jews now complain.’ 

Viewed in this light (I am unable to see in what other light it can be fairly viewed), there can 
be no great difficulty in deciding the question: What is the object of the chapter before us? 
Plainly the object is to illustrate and defend against objections, the affirmations which the apostle 
had been making. What were these? The consummation of the whole is, that ‘the κατὰ mpddece 
kAnroi are predestined, called, justified, and glorified; and these, both Jews and Gentiles” But 
the Jew objects, that this amounts to a breach of the promises made to Abraham and his seed. 
The apostle denies this. He states that the natural seed, as such, are not the specific objects of 
this promise ; and that God has always, in times past, as now under the gospel, chosen the objects 
of his favour where he pleased, without regard to any external privileges, advantages, or relations, 

What then has the apostle in reality been asserting in the eighth chapter, which he justifies and 
defends in the ninth? Surely the question in the eighth chapter is not one of eaternal privileges 
or advantages ; it is one of calling, justification, and glorification. It is one which respects the 
everlasting and inseparable love of Christ. Defence, therefore, of the sentiments inculeated in 
respect to these topics, occupies the ninth chapter. In itself, it contains not the great doctrine 
in question, that is, it does not directly reveal or inculcate it. The examples of God’s sovereignty 
produced in it are of various kinds, some of them having respect to temporal advantages or dis- 
advantages; and some to both spiritual and temporal. But the principle illustrated and con- 
firmed by all these is the main and all-important question; and the principle is that which is 
avowed in the eighth chapter, viz., that the κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοί are the certain heirs of future 
glory. It is the eighth chapter, then, which is the key of the ninth; and without keeping this in 
view, one may look in vain for the object of the various examples and illustrations which the 
ninth chapter exhibits. In a word, the apostle shows in the ninth chapter ‘ that God in calling, 
justifying, and glorifying οὖς mpoéyve, does not only what he has a perfect right to do, what is analo- 
gous to examples of his dealings as exhibited by the Jewish Scriptures, and what accords with 
the doctrines and predictions which they contain. In this way, and in this only, can we fully 
see the scope, object, and connection of the ninth chapter. 


CHAP. IX. 1—5. 


(1) First of all, the apostle proceeds to the most solemn assuran- 
ces of his affectionate regard for his own nation, in order to prevent 
the apprehension that he believed and taught as he had done respect- 
ing the Gentiles, on account of being alienated in his affections from 
the Jews. The expression of his feelings is made in glowing terms. 

᾿Αλήθειαν. . . . Χριστῷ, I speak the truth in Christ. Most interpreters 
regard ἐν Χριστῷ as the formula of an oath; and they appeal to the 
Hebrew form of an oath, which prefixes 3 (ἐν) to the object or per- 
son by whom any one swears. So also ἐν in the New Testament, 
ε. g., Matt. v. 34—36. Rev. x. 6. So Dan. xii. 7. (in Theodotion’s 
Greek version); and so Flatt interprets it in his commentary. But 


400 ROMANS IX. 2, 3. 


Tholuck has made this interpretation very doubtful. Compare, for 
example, ἐν Κυρίῳ in Eph. iv. 17, where it follows μαρτυροῦμαι, and 
where the formula of an oath is out of question. It is only so- 
lemn declaration, such as Christ or the Spirit of Christ prompts or 
suggests. In like manner we have χαρὰ ἐν Χριστῷ, ἀγάπη ἐν Χριστῷ, 
κ᾿ το A. Where an vath is of course out of all question. Indeed the 
phrase ἐν Κυρίῷ, ἐν Χριστῷ, &c., occurs so often, that abundant analogies 
are at hand to justify the exegesis which is given to ἐν Χριστῷ, here, 
when we construe it as meaning agreeably to what becomes one who 
is in Christ or who belongs to him; 1. e., as a Christian, or one who is 
spiritually united to Christ, I speak the truth, &e. 

Οὐ Ψεύδομαι repeats the affirmation and strengthens it, although the 
_ negative form or λιτύτης is used. Comp. John i. 21. Eph. iv. 25. 
1 Sam. iii. 18, for the negative form of the expression; 1 Tim. ii. 7, 
for the like words. 

Συμμαρτυρούσης. . . . ἁγίῳ, my conscience bearing me witness, in the 
Holy Spirit. I must connect these words together, in the method 
of exegesis which is here preferred, and not join οὐ ψεύδομαι with ἐν 
Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, as Dr. Knapp and some other critics have done, mak- 
ing the latter phrase a part of the formula of an oath. The repeti- 
tion of an oath here, would seem rather unlooked for and excessive ; 
besides that no example elsewhere of Christians swearing by the Holy 
Ghost can be produced. Conscience is the voice of God in man; or 
at least the faculty on which the influence of the Spirit of God seems 
to be specially exerted. It wasa conscience moved and enlightened 
by this Spirit, which, the apostle here solemnly declares, testified his 
affectionate regard for the Jewish nation; ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ meaning, 
I who am moved by the Holy Spirit, or am in the Spirit; comp. Rev. 
1. 10, ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι. 

(2) “οτι. ..« μου, that I have great sorrow and continual anguish 
in my heart. For the like expressions of sympathy and affection 
towards others, comp. 1 Cor. i.4. Phil. i. 3, 4. Eph. i. 16. 1 Thes. 
i. 2. Rom. i. 9, 10. Philem. ver. 4. 2 Tim. i. 3, 4. 2 Cor. xi, 29. 
xii. 15. 

(3) A much controverted verse, and which therefore needs parti- 
cular illustration. Nearly every word has been the subject of dif- 
ferent and contested exegesis, 

Ηὐχόμην γὰρ abris, for I myself could wish, Compare Acts xxy. 22, 
ἐβουλόμην, I could wish; Gal. iv.29 ἤθελον, I could desire. But why 
not translate, J did wish, ἡ, e., when I was an unconyerted Jew I did 


ROMANS ΙΧ. 3. 401 


wish? Because, (1) The apostle designs to show his present love 
tothe Jews. Who questioned this strong attachment to them, when 
he persecuted Stephen and others before his conversion? Or to 
what purpose could it be now to exhibit this, when his love to them 
since he became a Christian is the only thing that is called in ques- 
tion? Then, (2) Neither the present εὔχομαι, nor the Optative 
εὐχοίμην, would accurately express what the apostle means here. 
Εὔχομαι (Ind. present) would mean, J wish by way of direct and 
positive affirmation, and with the implication that the thing wished 
might take place; εὐχοήμην (Opt.) Lam wishing with desire, imply- 
ing the possibility that the thing wished for would take place. On 
the other hand, ηὐχόμην as here employed (J could wish) implies, that 
whatever his desires may be, after all the thing wished for is im- 
possible or it cannot take place; which is doubtless the very. shade 
of thought that the writer would design to express. See New Test. 
Gramm. ὃ 126. Note 1. If the apostle had designed here merely to 
describe what he once felt or desired, ὁ, ¢., before his conversion, he 
would of course have employed the Aorist of narration, and not the 
{mperfect. 

᾿Ανάθεμα εἶναι, to be an anathema, to be devoted to destruction, or 
to be excommunicated, ;This difficult and controverted word needs 
a full and satisfactory illustration. In classical Greek ἀνάθεμα and 
ἀνάθημα were originally altogether equivalent or synonymous ; just 
as εὕρεμα and εὕρημα were, and also ἐπίθεμα and ἐπίθημα, &c. (1) The 
proper and original meaning of ἀνάθεμα or ἀνάθημα, was a setting out 
or setting up of any thing conseckated to the gods, in their temples, 
such as tripods, 1 images, statues, inscriptions, &c. The exposure of 
such things in the temples, in any way, whether they hung up, stood 
up, or lay down, was dvédeua; the action of exposing them, or the 
exposure itself, was called ἀνάθεμα. Hence, (2) The thing itself 
exposed, the thing consecrated or devoted to the gods, was called 
ἀνάθεμα, by a very common principle of language applicable to a 
great multitude of words. Then, (3) As any thing devoted or con- 
secrated to the gods was irrevocably given up to them, and was no 
more subject to common use;-so when any living thing, beast or 
man, became an ἀνάθεμα, it was of course to be slain in sacrifice, and 
offered to the gods mostly as a piacular victim. In like manner, 
under the Levitical law, every 572) or ἀνάθεμα devoted to God, was 
incapable of redemption ; Lev. xxvii. 28, 29, πᾶν ἀνάθεμα... ἀσὸ 
ἀνθρώπου ἕως κτήνους. © » οὗ λυτρωθήσεται, ἀλλὰ ϑανάτῳ ανατωθήσεται ; 


20 


402 ROMANS ΙΧ. 3. 


comp. Judg. xi, 30, 31 and 89 ; which, however, is the only instance 
on record in the Scriptures of a human ἀνάθεμα, and which at all 
events is not encouraged by the laws of Moses. And in consequence 
of such a custom or law, cities, edifices, and their inhabitants, which 
were devoted to excision or entire destruction, were called 55, ἡ, e., 
ἀνάθεμα as the Seventy have rendered it. So Jericho was ®7, 
Josh. vi. 17. comp. verse 21; and so the cities of the Canaanites 
that were utterly destroyed by Israel, were named 27, destruction. 
Any thing in fact, whether man, beast, or any species of property or 
ornament, which was to be utterly destroyed, was called 529 (ἀνάθεμα) 
by the Hebrews; see Lev. xxvii. 28, 29. Deut. xiii. 15—17, and 
comp. 1 Kings xx. 42. Is. xxxiv. 5. Zech. xiv. 11. 

The Greek words ἀναθεματίϑω and ἀνατίθημι correspond, in like 
manner, to the Heb. 2% (Hiph. of 599), and mean to pronounce 
to be an ἀνάθεμα, to give up as an ἀνάθεμα, t. e., to set apart or deliver 
over to destruction. 

But to what destruction? To natural death or spiritual, 7. ¢., to 
sufferings in the present world, or those of everlasting death? Those 
who construe the word in the first way, say, that ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
means by Christ ; in which case the whole sentiment would seem 
to be; ‘I could wish to suffer temporal death inflicted by Christ, 
provided this would exempt my countrymen from it.’ But there are 
some weighty objections to this; for the apostle is not here discuss- 
ing the subject of the Jews’ temporal punishment or excision, but of 
their excision from the blessings of a future world by reason of their 
unbelief; comp. ix. 25—33. It is the fearful doom then which 
unbelief is to bring on the Jews, that the apostle wishes could be 
averted ; and it is his deep concern for them in respect to this, which 
he desires to testify. It isa® 0 of this kind, therefore, that he 
would consent to take upon himself, could they be saved by it. 
That ἀνάθεμα may be used to signify the second death, is clear from 
1 Cor. xvi. 22. The whole tenor of the passage makes clearly 
against the supposition, that temporal excision merely is meant. 

In respect to ἀσὺ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (if the whole be construed as I have 
here supposed, it must be in order to follow the strict principles 
of exegesis), it may mean by Christ ; i. ¢., it is equivalent to ὑπὸ τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ. So clearly ἀπό may be used, and is often employed ; ¢. δ.» 
Mark viii. 31, Luke ix. 22. xvii. 25. Matt. xi. 19. Luke xii. 58. 
Acts ii, 22. x. 17, et sepe; see Bretschn. in verbum. Still, as the 
idea of being an anathema involves the idea of separation or banish- 


ROMANS ΙΧ. 3. | 403 


ment from Christ, ἀπό may be rendered from, without any important 
variation of the sense. 

In regard to ὑπὲρ τῶν =. . . σάρκα, on account of or in the room of 
my brethren, my kinsmen after the flesh, it plaimly means, for the 
sake of my natural brethren; my kinsmen by natural descent or 
generation, 2. ¢., the Jews. 


Tholuck gives a little different turn to the passage, but the same 
sense in substance. He compares ἀνάϑεμα ἰο ΘΠ in the later Heb.; 
which was used to denote excommunication, separation from the 
Jewish community or ὅπ, The Rabbins make three gradations of 
excommunication, which they call, (a) "2 seclusion, which lasted 
a month, and obliged a man to keep four ells distant from all his 
household. (0) The 599, which forbade all intercourse, action, 
eating, drinking, &c., with any one, and all approach on the part 
of the excommunicated person to the synagogue. (6) The SY 
(from 2Y, excludere), which designated utter exclusion on the part 
of God and man, and the being given up to destruction. A tre-. 
mendous example of the Rabbinic 597 is produced by Buxtorf, Lex. 


Rabb. p. 828. I subjoin it below, for the information of the curious 
reader. ἢ 


* “By the authority of the Lord of lords, Jet A. B. be an anathema. (2771) in both houses of 
judgment, in that above and that beneath; let him be anathema by the holy beings on high, by 
the Seraphim and Ophannim [δ δ, wheels, see Ezek. i. 16, seq., a superior order of angels] 5 
let him be anathema by the whole church, great and small. Let plagues great and real be upon 
him; diseases great and horrible. Let his habitation be that of dragons; let his star be dark- 
ened with clouds. Let him be an object of wrath, indignation, and anger ; let his corpse be given 
to wild beasts and serpents. Let his enemies and adversaries exult over him; let his silver and 
gold be given to others; let his children be exposed at the door of his enemies ; and let posterity 
be astonished at his fate. Let him be cursed by the mouth of Addiriron and Achtariel, by the 
mouth of Sandalphon and Hadraniel, by the mouth of Hansasiel and Patchiel, by the mouth of 
Seraphiel and Sagansiel, by the mouth of Michael and Gabriel, by the mouth of Raphael and Mesha- 
retiel. [These are the names of angels.] Let him be cursed by the mouth of Zabzabib, and 
by the mouth of Habhabib, who is the great God [these names are Cabbalistic ones of the Divi- 
Lity]; and by the mouth of the seventy names of the great King [Jehovah]; and on the part of 
Tsortak the great chancellor [another mysterious name}. Let him be swallowed up, like Korah 
and his company; with terror and trembling let his breath depart. May the rebuke of Jehovah 
slay him; may he be strangled, like Ahithophel, by h#s own counsel! May his leprosy be like 
that of Gehazi; and may there be no resurrection of his remains! Let not his sepulchre be 
with that of Israel. Let his wife be given to others ; let them embrace her, while heis giving up 
the ghost.—In this anathema let A. B, remain; and let this be his inheritance. But on me, and 
on all Isracl, may God bestow peace with his blessing!” 


404 | ROMANS ΙΧ. 3. 


In this way, ἀνάϑεμα ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ would mean, one banished, cut 
off, separated from Christ ; which would involve, however, all the 
consequences that are involved in the preceding exegesis. 

But on the whole, as the preceding sense is most consonant with 
Scriptural and classical usage, I should give it the preference. The 
sentiment then is: ‘ Such is my love for my kinsmen after the flesh, 
that were it:possible, I would devote myself to the destructionswhich 
threatens them, could they but escape by such means. 

In respect to the objections urged against this sentiment, they do 
not seem to be weighty. It is asked: ‘ How could the apostle be 
willing to be for ever cast off and separated from Christ? How could 
he be willing to become a sinner and to be miserable for ever?’ I 
answer, (1) The possibility ‘that such could or would be the case, is 
not at all implied in what he says; no more than the possibility that 
“‘an angel from heaven should preach another gospel,” is implied by 
what is said in Gal.i. 8. It is merely a case supposed or stated, for - 
the sake of illustrating’ or expressing a feeling or sentiment. (2) 
Even supposing *the actual possibility of the exchange in question 
was believed by the apostle, it would not imply that in itself he was 
willing to besa sinner, or to be for ever miserable. When the apostle 
says that Christ was made a CURSE for us, does he mean to say, 
that Christ took on him the temper of mind which they have who 
are accursed? ‘Quid mirum,” says Origen, “si, cum Dominus pro 
servis maledictum sit factum, servus pro fratribus anathema fiat ?” 
It would imply merely, then, that Paul would be willing, in case he 
could save the whole nation, to take:on himself the miseries to which 
they were hastening. And a sentiment like this, is surely capable 
of a rational and sober defence. If benevolence would lead Paul to 
undergo any assignable degree of suffering, in the present life, in 
order to promote the everlasting welfare of the Jewish nation; would 
not the like benevolence lead him to undergo any assignable degree 
of misery in a future world for the same purpose, provided such a 
purpose could be answered by it? Who can draw the line where 
benevolence would stop short; except it be, where the evil suffrerd 
was to be equal to the good accomplished, or even greater? Could 
Paul have the genuine spirit of his Lord and Master, unless he could 
truly say what he has said in the passage before us? But, (3) The 
inference that Paul “ was willing to be damned,” or that Christians 
must come to such a state of willingness, is made without any ground 
from the verse in question. If Paul’s being cast off by the Saviour 


ROMANS Ix. 3. 405 


could oceasion the reception and salvation of the who1e Jewish peo- 
ple, this apostle expresses his readiness to submit to it. But as such 
a thing was impossible; and as he really knew it to beso; all that 
we can well suppose the passage teaches, is, that the apostle possessed 
such a feeling of benevolence toward the Jewish nation, that he was 
ready to do or suffer any thing whatever, provided their salvation 
might be secured by it. In other words, this is a high and glowing 
expression, springing from an excited state of feeling, which the use 
of common language could not at all satisfy. And in making use of 
such an expression, Paul did not depart from a mode of speaking 
which is still very common in the East. The Arabians, for exam- 
ple, very commonly, in order to testify strong affection, say, let my 
soul be a ransom for thee. So Maimonides (Sanhed. fol. 18. 1), in 
explaining the Talmudic expression 7753 °2"20, see I am thy ran- 
som states, that this was a common expression of strong affection. 

So in the verse before us, the whole is evidently and necessarily 
designed to express strong affection. But what expression of this 
would be uttered, if we suppose the apostle merely to say (as nota 
few critics maintain), that he once was desirous of being cut off from 
Christ, viz., before his conversion and when he persecuted the church? 
But how could he be ewé of from Christ, who never had been joined 
to him? And what evidence was this of Paul’s present affection ? 
Or if it be construed as meaning, ‘ cut off, destroyed, 7. 6.. put to 
death by Christ ;’ did the apostle actually wish this before he was 
converted? And if he did, what had this to do with the salvation 
of his brethren and kinsmen ? 

It is possible, indeed, to construe ἀνάθεμα as implying temporal 
death or destruction ; and to suppose the apostle to say: ‘1 could 
wish that I might suffer the punishment which Christ is about to 
inflict on the Jews, in their stead.’ The emphasis would not be 
wholly destroyed by this interpretation. Butit would be greatly 
diminished. And then, the context no where leads us to consider 
the subject of temporal destruction, as being here agitated in the 
mind of the apostle. It is only the ‘wrath of God which is revealed 
from heaven, against the impenitent and unbelieving,’ to which he 

considers them in this place as exposed. He is writing to Jews at 
Rome, not in Palestine. 

I must adopt then the exegesis above given of the verse before us, 
viz. Such is my affection for my Jewish brethren after the flesh, 
that could I put myself in their stead, and take on me the conse~ 


406 ROMANS Ix, 4. 


quences of unbelief to which they are exposed, I would willingly do 
it in order that they might be saved.” ‘Truly “a love stronger than 
death, which many waters could not quench nor floods drown !” 

(4) ᾿Ισραηλῆται, Israelites, ὦ. e., who bear the honourable or far- 
famed name of Israelites; comp. Gen. xxxii. 28.2 Cor. xi. 22. Phil. 
ii. 5. This however is only an ewternal privilege; for they are not 
all Israelites in truth, who are of Israclitish descent, Rom. ix. 6. 
comp. 111, 28, 29. 

ὯΩν ἡ υἱοθεσία, whose is the sonship, t. e., the relation of sons or chil- 
dren; comp. Ex. iv. 22, 23. Deut. xxxii. 5, 6. xiv. 1. Hos. xi. 1. 
The meaning is, that God bore a special relation to Israel; or rather, 
that israel stood in a special relation to him, and was treated with 
distinguished and peculiar affection. This last circumstance forms 
the special ground of the υἱοθεσία. But this υἱοθεσία, was external, and 
consisted with the Jewish nation’s being in a very imperfect state ; 
comp. Gal. iv. 1—3. 2 Cor. πὶ. 6—18. For asonship of a much > 
higher nature than this, comp. Gal. iv. 4—7. Rom. viii. 14—17. 

Δοξα may have the sense here of glory, and be joined with υἱοθεσία 
in the way of Hendiadys or as explicative, so that the meaning 
would be for substance glorious adoption or sonship, i. e., one which 
is worthy of praise, which deserves to be mentioned with honour. 
And this method Tholuck prefers. But the objection to this is, that 
the epithet δόξα appears to be too strong for a mere external viodecia; 
and besides all this, all the other nouns which precede and follow 
stand single. On this account I must prefer giving to δόξα the sense 
of 33, and regard it here as designating the visible splendour which 
was the symbol of Jehovah’s presence, and which was peculiarly 
manifested in the sanctum sancturum of the temple ; comp. Ex. xxv. 
22. xl. 84, 35. Lev. ix. 6. Ezek. i. 28. 11. 23. viii. 4. It is true, in- 
deed, that in all these passages we have "23 (δόξα Θεοῦ), and not 
simply 123. But the Targum, which employs 77) 822% for 728, 
nin? also employs 8"22% (Shechinah) alone in the same sense. Paul 
then may have here used δύξα elliptically, in a corresponding man- 
ner; and so (with Beza, Turretin, Vitringa, Heumann, Riickert, 
Reiche, and others) I suppose that he has employed it. The senti- 
ment then is: ‘To the Israelites belonged the visible splendour or 
glory, which was indicative of the immediate presence of Jehovah.’ 

Διαϑῇκαι seems here to indicate the covenants made at different 
times with Abraham, Jacob, Moses, &c.—Nowolecia, legislation or 
system of laws, viz., the Mosaic legislation or laws ; as to the distin- 


ROMANS ΙΧ. 5. 407 


guished privilege of these, comp. Deut. iv. 5—8. Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. 
Rom. ii. 18, 19.--- λατρεία, service, NY, rites of the temple, priest- 
hood, &c.— Ἐπαγγελίαι, the promises, viz., those which had respect to 
the Messiah: comp. Gal. ili. 16. Rom. xv. 8. Heb. xi. 17. 

(D) Ων οἱ πατέρες, whose are the fathers, ὁ. e., whose progenitors 
were the fathers, Abraham, &c., to whom so many promises (Zruyye- _ 
Ajar) were made, and who are so distinguished in sacred history. 

"EE ὧν... σάρκα, from whom [descended] Christ, in respect to 
the flesh, i. ¢., in respect to his human or inferior nature, or so far as 
he was man; comp. Rom. i. 3.and ὁμοίωμα σαρκός in vill. ὃ. But if he 
had no other nature, why should such a distinction as is implied by 
κατὰ σάρκα, be here designated? Would a sacred writer say of Da- 
vid, for example, that he was descended from Abraham κατὰ σάρκα ? 
If this should be said, it would imply that κατὰ πνεῦμα he was not de- 
scended from Abraham, but from some one else. But here, the 
other nature of Christ appears to be designated by the succeeding 
phrase ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός. 

Ὃ dy... ἀμήν, who is God over all, blessed for ever, Amen. ‘O 
ὧν is equivalent to or the same as ὃς ἐστι, who is ; for so the article 
followed by a participle-is often employed in the Greek language ; 
see John i. 18. iii, 13. xii. 17. 2 Cor. xi. 31, ὁ Θεὸς... ὁ ὧν εὖλο.- 
γητός x. τ. A— Εἰσὶ πάντων, being placed here between the article ὁ and 
the noun Θεός to which this article belongs, is of course an adjective 
as to meaning, and designates the idea of supreme. Some indeed 
have understood ἐπὶ πάντων as meaning ἐπὶ πάντων πατέρων; but this is 
plainly a forced and frigid exegesis. In Hebrew, ΠΊΩΝ ‘NOS and "IY 
are epithets of Jehovah, the supreme God; and to these παντοκράτωρ 
in the Septuagint corresponds; 6. g., 2 Sam. ν᾿ 10. 1 Chron. xi. 9. 
Jer. v. 14. Amos iii. 18. Zech. i. 3, seq., et alibi. So in the Apo- 
calypse, παντοκράτωρ often appears as an epithet of Jehovah, e.g., Rev. 
i. 8. iv. 8. xi. 17, xv. 3, Ge. Now παντοκράτωρ is for substance the 
equivalent of ἐπὶ πάντων as to meaning ; so that ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός must 
be altogether equivalent to ὁ Θεὸς 6 παντοκράτωρ. 

Εὐλογητός is equivalent to the Hebrew 793, The Jewish Rab- 
bins from time immemorial have been accustomed, whenever the 
name of God is mentioned, to add 87 JA, Hlessed is he. So Paul 
here, after calling Christ ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, adds εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς 
αἰῶνας, ὦ. Cy Wi poy? FN, Compare now the same appellation 
given to God in Mark xiv. 61. Whether an ascription of divine 
Lonour to Christ is intended by applying to him here the word 


408 ROMANS IX. 3, 


εὐλογητός, the reader may satisfy himself by comparing the use of 
this word in 2 Cor. i. 3. xi. 81. Eph. i. 3. 1 Pet. i. 3. Luke i. 68. 
That divine honour is ascribed to Christ by the heavenly hosts (and 
the same.too which is rendered to the Father), appears from Rey. vy. 
13, 14. Nor can it be objected that it is contrary to the usage of 
Paul, to name Christ Θεός: for so he is called in Tit. i. 3, and the 
great God in Tit. ii. 13; moreover he is represented as ἶσα Θεῷ in 
Phil. ii. 6; and as Θεός ἴῃ Johni.1; not to mention the controverted 
but seemingly well authenticated reading (Θεός) in 1 Tim. iii. 16. 
Nor is it any objection to this, that in 1 Cor. xv. 24—28, the apostle 
represents the Son as renouncing or laying aside his supremacy or 
dominion, at the final consummation of all things; for the office of 
the Messiah, and the dominion of the Messiah, as such, must of 
course cease, when all the objects of that office and that dominion 
shall have been fully accomplished. In reference to this kind of 
dominion, Christ is called Κύριος in 1 Cor. viii. 6; and it is such a 
dominion which is represented as bestowed on him in Phil. ii. 9—11, 
Col. i. 17, 18. Heb. i. 3. τ. 5—9. viii. 1. 

Neither the grammatical arrangement of the text, then, nor the 
sentiments of the apostle elsewhere, require us, or (may I not say ?) 
permit us, to give a different interpretation to the words of the verse 
in question. Nor do any various readings of the verse occur, which 
are of any authority at all. It has been conjectured, indeed, that 
we should read ὧν ὁ x. +. A. 1. 6.) whose is the God over all, &e.; so 
Whitby, Crellius, Taylor, and others. But not to say, that taking 
such liberties with the text is fairly out of question (which surely 
must be granted), it will be enough to compare the sentiment which 
the passage thus modified would give, with Rom. ii. 29, 30. This 
then is one of the cases, in which Paul has directly asserted Christ 
to be supreme God, and has accordingly rendered to him the sacred 
doxology. 

The efforts to evade this conclusion have been many and strenuous. 
The interpretations which have resulted from them may be divided 
into two classes, viz. 

I. Those which put a full period after σάρκα, and make the re- 
mainder of the verse a doxology to God the Father. So Erasmus, 
in the enlarged edition of his Notes; so Enjeddin, Whiston, Semler, 
and others. Even Glockler, who is a Wicenian, does the same; which 
of course, moreover, we might expect from Reiche, who is apparently 
ahigh Arian. But, (a) It was long ago noted by Bengel (with 


ROMANS ΙΧ. 5. 409 


whom Faustus Socinus also agrees, that in all classes of doxology, 
ΓΞ in Hebrew and εὐλογητός in Greek precede the name of God 
who is blessed. So the laws of grammar beyond all doubt demand; 
for P72 Ti would mean, the blessed Jehovah, i. ¢, the, blessed 
Jehovah does this or that; for both words (thus arranged) make out 
merely the subject of a sentence. On the contrary, 77. 72 means 
blessed is or blessed be Jehovah; Jehovah being the subject of the 
sentence, and 73 the predicate. So, more than thirty times, the 
words 7°92 in Hebrew and εὐλογητός in Greek are placed in the Old 
Testament; as any one may see by consulting Tromm’s Concordance 
under εὐλογητός. The same is the case with all the examples in the 
New Testament. Only one can I find in all the Bible, that differs 
from this; and this is Ps. lxvii. 19 (Sept.), where however the 
repetition of εὐλογητός is plainly an error of the scribes, as it has no 
corresponding repetition in the Hebrew, and is against all analogy; 
I mean in respect to the first instance in which it here occurs. Even 
Kichhorn (Einlet. ins. A. T. § 320) concedes that the reading in the 
Sept. is a doubtful one. (ὦ) Construed in this way, ay is entirely 
useless and destitute of meaning, and the addition of it is altogether 
unaccountable. The natural and simple order of the text would be; 
Εὐλογητὺς ¢ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς x τ. A. (c) In this mode of interpretation 
there is no antithesis to κατὰ σάρκα, which plainly requires one; as 
the natural inquiry is: If Christ be descended from David only xara 
σάρκα, What is he as to his higher nature? Comp. Rom. i. 1, 3. 

II. Another class of critics viz., Locke, Clark, Justi, Ammon, 
and others, put a full period after σἄντων, and then make a doxology 
of the sequel. In this way the difficulty last suggested with regard 
to the interpretation No. I, is in a measure removed, as a kind of an- 
tithesis is made out by ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων, sc. πάντων πατέρων, t. ey Christ 
in his human nature was a descendant of David, but still was a per- 
sonage of exalted dignity, being elevated above all the Jewish fathers, 
who are objects of so much encomium in sacred history and of so 
much veneration among the Jewish people. But still there are 
weighty objections against this mode of pointing and explaining the 
text; for (a) The difficulty in regard to the position of εὐλογητός, 18 
the same here as has been already described above, under No. I. a. 
If it were doxology, it must be written εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς x 7. A. But 
as there are no authorities, either of manuscripts or versions, for 
such an arrangement, so we are not at liberty to make it; and if we 
do so, we must do it arbitrarily. (0) In such a case the noun Θεὸς 


410 ROMANS IX. 35. 


must have the article, as being the subject of the sentence, and in its 
own nature customarily requiring it. So uniformly in the Sept. and 
in the New Testament, where Θεὸς is the subject of a doxology made 
by εὐλοχητός it takes the article; ¢.g., Gen. ix. 26. xiv. 20. xxiv. 27. 
1 Sam. xxv. 32. 2 Sam. xviii. 28. 1 K.i. 48, v. 7. viii. 15. 2 Chron. 
ii. 12. vi. 4. Ez. vii. 46. Ps. xvii. 50. xl. 14. Ixv. 19. Ixvii. 20, 38. Ixxi. 
19. cv. 47. exliii. 1. Dan. i. 29. Luke i. 68. 2 Cor. i. ὃ. Eph. 1. 3. 
1 Pet. 1.3. In regard to Κύριος, the usage of the Sept. varies; 6. 9.» 
1 Sam. xxv. 39, εὐλογητός ὁ Κύριος, according with the usage of Θεός ; 
but in other passages the article is omitted, 6. g., Ex. xviii. 10. Ruth 
iv. 14. Ps. exxiii. 5. cxxxiv. 21. But no instance of the like varia- 
tion can I find, in respect to Θεός. The example in our text must 
stand alone, if it be one, of Θεός in a doxology with εὐλογητός, and yet 
without the article. (6) To break off a sentence with ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων, 
seems at least to make it very abrupt and incomplete. To what can 
πάντων refer, in such a connection, except to the fathers? And to say 
that the Messiah was exalted above the Jewish patriarchs, although 
it might be saying something, would not seem to be saying very much, 
considering the efficacy w shih Paul had been ascribing to his love and 
sufferings, sand death, and the greatness which he Ὁ ascribed to his 
power. (d) There is something: incongruous in a doxology here to 
God the Father; which even Crellius himself suggests (Artemon. 
Init. Evang. Johan.). The apostle is here expressing the deepest 
and most unfeigned regret of his soul, that notwithstanding the ex- 
alted and peculiar privileges of the Jewish nation, they had by their 
unbelief forfeited them all, and made themselves obnoxious to a most 
terrible condemnation. To break out into a doxology here, would 
be (as Flatt suggests) like saying: ‘These special privileges have, by 
being abused, contributed greatly to enhance the guilt and punish- 
ment of the Jewish nation; God be thanked that he has given them 
such privileges? It is a duty, indeed, to be grateful for blessings 
which are bestowed; but—all in its proper place. Doxologies are 
not appropriate to paragraphs, which give an account of mercies 
abused and deep guilt contracted. (6) Besides all this, the abrupt- 
ness of a doxology here, which could contain no reference to God as 
mentioned in the preceding context (for he is not there mentioned), 
is plain and striking: and also, as Nésselt, Flatt, Koppe, and 
Ewald have observed, it would be without example. Comp. Rom. 
i, 25, xi. 36. 

The remark of Eckermann and Justi, that εὐλογητός is required to 


ROMANS IX. ὅ. , 411 


stand before Θεός in ἃ doxology, only when this doxology stands at 
the beginning of a sentence, is not true in point of fact; 6. g., Gen. 
xiv. 29, where καί shows that εὐλογητός is not at the beginning of a 
sentence; 2 Sam. xxii. 47. Ps. xvii. 46. xvii. 35. In the lagt case, 
one might. contend and say, that εὐλογητός begins a new sentence; but 
then where does it not, on the same ground? ‘The burden of proof 
lies on those, who assert that εὐλογητός need not be prefixed except it 
stand at the beginning of a sentence; yet where are the instances in 
which it is not prefixed? The only one (except an instance of a 
“manifestly corrupt text, Ps. Ixvii. 19), is the very verse before us. 
To assume the principle in question, then, is to take for granted the 
very point in dispute. 

The remark of Déderlein, that ἀμήν necessarily implies an Opta- 
tive doxology (sc. εὐλογητὸς εἴη Θεός), is disproved by Rom. i. 25, 
where ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς ΡΠ, ὙΣ χοῦ the words of Paul, 1. δὲ 
the apostle speaks in the Jndicative mode, and not in the Optative 
The same is the case in 1 Pet. iv. 11, ᾧ [sc. Θεῷ vel Χριστῷ} ἐστιν 
ἡ δόξα x. τ. A And in other cases where no verb is supplied, 6. g., 
Rom. xvi. 27. Gal. i. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 17. vi. 16. 2 Tim. vi. 18, &e., it 
is not by any means certain (as the above explicit instances of Indi- 
cative usage show), that the Optative εἴη, rather than the Indicative 
ἐστί, 15 to be supplied, 

Nor does the remark of Erasmus, that in some of the manuscripts 
of Cyprian, Hilary, and Chrysostom, Deus or Θεός is wanting in the 
citations of Rom. ix. ὅ, prove any thing; for these are evidently 
omissions of copyists, since all the best manuscripts of these fathers 
insert Deus or Θεός. 

Grotius is still more unsuccessful, in asserting that the Syriac ver- 
sion (the Peschito), omits Θεός ; for this version has words translated 
Deus super omnia. Stolz, in his celebrated German version, has left 
out Θεός; whether on the authority of Grotius as above, or because 
he thought it a disagreeable appendage to the text, does not appear. | 
After all these proposed changes, however, of punctuation, of the 
order of the text, and of the substance of it, the text, as it now stands, 
remains in reality untouched by any criticism which can have any 
considerable weight with men of ingenuous and candid minds. That 
those who deny the divinity of Christ should be solicitous to avoid 
the force of this text, is not unnatural; for while it remains in the 
records of the New Testament, it stands an irrefragable evidence of ~ 
what Paul believed, asserted, and taught, relative to this subject. 


412 ROMANS IX. ὅ. 


The only way in which any avoiding of its force is practicable, 
seems to be, to assert that ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός is meant to designate 
merely the supremacy of Christ as Mediator, in which capacity he is 
guasi Deus, and in the like capacity is styled ὉΠ ON in Ps. xlv. In 
pursuing this course, more probability than is now exhibited in the 
various evasions that I have above noticed, and also more ingenu- 
ousness, might be shown. But still, the general and spontaneous 
feeling of an unprejudiced reader must always be (at least so it 
seems to me), that God over all means SUPREME GoD, and that 
εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμὴν, can be applied only to him who is truly 
divine. A Θεὸς δεύτερος, in a real and veritable sense, seems to oppose 
the fundamental principle of the Scriptures. 

Riickert and Usteri, the first in his Commentary and the second 
in his Lehrbegrif’ Pauli, both acknowledge that there is no avoiding 
the usual exegesis of this text on the common principles of philology. 
Both of them doubt or impugn the divinity of Christ; yet they 
yield to the laws of grammar and philology here. But both assert 
that this is a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον on the part of Paul (which I would by 
no means admit), and Usteri says, that ‘he cannot divest himself 
of the suspicion, that there must be some error in the text or in the 
interpretation.’ But Reiche is made of sterner stuff. He yields 
nothing to the laws of grammar, or to the position of εὐλογητός, &c.; 
he makes a period at σάρκα and constructs the rest as a dowology. 
Both proceed upon the ground, so far as their feeling of objection is 
concerned, that Christ is only a derived God, and therefore cannot 
have supreme divinity ascribed to him. This is indeed a legitimate 
inference from the Nicene creed ; but still it is not what the Nicene 
fathers meant to teach in a direct way. eal divinity, although not 
supreme divinity, they undoubtedly meant to ascribe to Christ. 


a 


ROMANS Ix. 6. 413 


CHAP. IX. 6—13. 


Tue apostle, having expressed his strong affection toward his own nation, and described the 
claims to pre-eminence which ‘they had hitherto enjoyed, now proceeds to show that all these 
do not make out any good grounds of preference in a spiritual respect. He teaches them 
clearly, that it is not the simple fact of natural descent from Abraham, which makes them his 
children in the higher and scriptural sense of this word. ‘They are not all Israel, who are of 
Israel ;? and even among the natural descendants of Abraham, God did in ancient times make 
a wide distinction. Consequently, the mere fact of natural descent can prove nothing as to the 
point of spiritual rights or claims, verses 6—13. 


(6) Οὐχ, οἷον δέ, ἃ controverted expression ; which however may be 
rendered plain in two ways; either (1) Οἷον may be taken adverbi- 
ally, as ὡς or ὥσπερ to which it is very often equivalent (see Passow 
on οἷος, No. 6); and then we may translate: Jt is not so that, &c. ; 
just as we translate uj ὡς ὅτι, 2 Thess. ii. 2. (2) Οἷον in classic 
Greek often implies a preceding row. The whole phrase would be: 
od τοῖόν ἐστι, οἷον ὅτι x τ΄. A.3 ἃ. 6.9) Sit is nosuch thing as that, &e. ; in 
which case we may render: There is no such thing as that ἐχπέσσω. 
κεν κ᾿ τ A. The former method is most simple, perhaps, but not the 
most probable; for οἷον used adverbially is generally employed in a 
merely comparative way. The meaning is; ‘But what I have said 
in respect to the defection of Israel, does not at all imply that the 
promises of God are not sure and certain.’ Aé, διιέ, continuative and 
adversative. 

Tholuck is mistaken, when, in objecting to οἷον 62 being here 
used as equivalent to οἷόν τε, he says the latter must always have the 
Infinitive after it. Ojs¢ re with an Infinitive has indeed the mean- 
ing possibile est, &c.; but οἷός re is often employed without an In- 
finitive, and in the sense of so as, such as, like ; and even without an 
Infinitive it sometimes means possible; see Passow on οἷος No. 2. 6. 
No. ὃ. ὁ. However, I do not find οἷον δέ employed in the sense of 
οἷον τε, possible. Consequently I must prefer the rendering given 
above. 

Λογος, promise, word, in the sense of something promised ; often 
so in English, 6. g., he has given his word.—Exziarwxey, failed, been 
frustrated, irritum factum est. So the Hebrew D2, which corre- 
sponds in sense with ἐχπέπτωχε; 6. g., in Josh. xxi. 45. 1 K. viii. 56. 
2K. x. 10. 

Οὐ γὰρ . . . ᾿Ἰσραήλ, for not all who are of Israel, are Israel; 1. 6.» 


414 ROMANS IX. 7, 8. 


not all the natural descendants of Abraham, are Israelites in the 
true, spiritual, scriptural sense of the word. The Talmud (Tract. 
Sanhed. cap. 11) expresses the feelings and views of the Jews, rela- 
tive to their claims of pre-eminence: 821 Dbiyp pon wa ONT, 

t. @., all Israel have their portion in the world to come. But such 
claims are rejected by our text and the sequel; as well as:‘by Rom. 
iii. John viii. 39. Matt. iii. 9, Gal. iii. 9, 28, 29. Tee here shows, 
that what follows is designed for illustration and confirmation. The 
apostle proceeds to give a reason why the promise has not been bro- 
ken; and that is, that all the natural descendants of Abraham are 
not, as such, the heirs of the promise. 

(7) Σπέρμα, natural descendant.— Τέκνα, children, herein the iat 
x Seiko sense, like that of Ἰσραήλ above in the second instance.— 
"ARN ἐν ᾿Ισαὼκ . 2.» σπξ ἑρμα, but, “In Isaae shall thy seed be called ;” 
ὦ, 4 (as most kapha it) in the person of Isaac, thy seed, viz., ae 
descendants who are to stand in a covenant relation to me, shall be 
chosen or selected. But amore probable and efficient sense is given 
to the passage, by taking κληθήσοντειι here in the sense which it has in 
iv. 17; and then the meaning will be: ‘In Isaac or through Isaac 
shall thy seed (the seed here promised), be called into being.’ Καλέω, 
used like the Hebrew δὲ, means ito call out of nothing into being ; 
as Rom. iv. 17 shows. After &Adand before ἐν x +. A. either οὕτως 
ἐῤῥήθη or 225409 is implied.—As to τέχνα, these are, in the next verse, 
called τὼ τέχνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. In verse 5 above, ἐσαγγελίαι (NB) 
are reckoned among the external privileges which the Israelites 
enjoyed. But even these, only a part of Abraham’s natural descen- 
dants enjoyed. Ishmael, Abraham’s eldest son, was excluded from 
the covenant relation; and so were Abraham’s six sons by Keturah, 
Gen. xxv. 1—5. 

᾿Εσαγγελίας in verse 8, however, refers to the promises in Gen. xy. 
4, 5. xvii. 15, 16, 19, 21 (see verse 9). Isaac was in a special sense 
the son of promise ; and his natural descendants, therefore, may be 
styled τέχνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. 

(8) Τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, that is, i. e., which signifies, which means, But 
does Paul intend to say, that the explanation which follows exhibits 
the sense of the original promise? Or does he mean to intimate 
merely, that he gives to the subject under consideration a meaning 
analogous to that ancient promise? That it is capable of a satis- 
factory explanation on the former ground, may be shown from the 
considerations suggested in the sequel.—@d ra... . Οεοῦ, the natural 


a ee ἂν... 


ὃ 
4 
4 
ἢ 


ROMANS IX. 8. 415 


descendants [of Abraham] are not the children of God. Τὰ τέκνα τῆς 
σορχός plainly means physical or natural descendants, children in the 
first and literal sense. But the sense of τέχνα τοῦ Θεοῦ is not so obvi- 
cus. Is it here used to designate the children of God in the highest 
spiritual sense ofthis term? I think not; for it is Isaac and his 
descendants as such, who are here contradistinguished from Ishmael 
and the other six sons of Abraham and their descendants. The point 
here insisted on is, that natural descent from Abraham did not of 
itself entitle any one to the high spiritual privileges of the gospel; 
that the Jew had no more right than the Gentile, to expect any pe- 
culiar favour to himself merely on such a ground. But how does 
the apostle illustrate and confirm this principle? By showing that 
in ancient times, the promise of a numerous seed who should stand 
in a covenant relation to God, and enjoy peculiar external privi- 
leges on this account, was not made to the natural descendants of 


- Abraham as such, but only to those natural descendants who would 


spring from Isaac the son of peculiar promise. In other words; 
Ishmael and the sons of Abraham by Keturah, had no share in the 
covenant-engagements made with the promised seed. 

The deduction from all this is, that God does not dispense his 
blessings or favours according to claims grounded on mere natural 
descent or external privileges, but according to his own infinite wis- 
dom and pleasure. In other words, the claims of men on the ground 
of birth, or external privilege, or merit of their own, are not the 
ground of decision on the part of God, with respect to the blessings 
which he may bestow uponthem. The first two of these constitute 
no ground at all of claim; and the last also has no foundation, inas- 
much as all men are sinners and are deserving of the divine displea- 
sure. Of course the reasons why God gives to these and withholds 
from those, are with himself; they are not grounded on our claims 
or merits. Reasons he doubtless has, and these of the best kind ; 
for who will venture to tax infinite wisdom and goodness with doing 
any thing without good and sufficient reason? But then these rea- 
sons God has kept to himself; he has not revealed them to us. 
When this is the case, the apostle speaks of him as acting κατὰ τὴν 
πρόθεσιν αὐτοῦ----κατὼ τὴν ὡρισμένην βουλὴν καὶ πρόγνωσιν αὐτοῦ, Χο. Butno- 
thing can be farther from truth, than to suppose that a Being of in- 
finite wisdom and goodness ever acts arbitrarily, or without the best 
of reasons; although they may be, and often are, unknown to us. 

That τέχνα Θτοῦ εοῦ may mean, “ the children of promise in respect 


416 ROMANS IX. 8. 


to the external privileges and blessings of the ancient covenant or 
dispensation,” is clear from the manner in which τέκνα (8%) is ap- 
plied to the whole body of Israelites, in Deut. xxxii. 5, 6. xiv. 1. 
Hos. xi. 1. Ex. iv. 22, 23. Ofthe same nature is τὰ τέχνα τῆς ἐπαγ- 
γελίας. It designates those on whom the promised blessings were 
bestowed, which are mentioned above in verses 4, 5; or else those 
who were the descendants of Isaac, himself a τέκνον τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. In 
the same manner σπέρμα, at the close of the verse, is to be understood, 
ὦ. 6.7) as equivalent to τέκνα Θεοῦ in the sense just explained, or as YY 
in Gen. xvii. 8. It should be noted here, also, as a matter of some 
interest, that Θεοῦ is omitted in F. G. 37.67 ex emend. 70. Matt. 
ὁ. k., Chrysostom. Probably the copyists were stumbled with the 
appellation τέκνα Θεοῦ as applied to the posterity of Isaac in general. 
But the texts cited above show that they need no thave been; for 
the meaning of τέκνα Θεοῦ is, such children as God according to the 
special promise to Abraham would raise up So his posterity, who 
should enjoy covenant privileges. 

The argument and illustration of the a according to this 
explanation, stand thus: ‘ All claims of the Jews to the spiritual 
privileges and blessings of Christ’s kingdom, on the ground of natural 
descent from Abraham, are futile. ven in ancient times, God did 
not confer the blessings and privileges of his ancient dispensation on 
such a ground. Only one of Abraham’s sons was selected as the 
object of God’s peculiar; covenant. Consequently it is no strange 
thing that God should deal in like manner with Abraham’s natural 
descendants, at the present time.’ 

The question is not, whether the distinction made in ancient times 
among the natural descendants of Abraham, and to which the apostle 
here refers, was one which had direct respect to their condition ina 
future world, 7. ¢.. to the highest spiritual blessings ; for most clearly 
this is not the case. Surely all the natural descendants of Isaac were 
not called in this sense. The distinction adverted to here, must be 
that which had respect to the eternal covenant-relation of the Is- 
raelites as a nation, to God. But the essential question in respect 
to the meaning of the whole passage,is: Why does the apostle adduce 
such an example here of God’s bestowing blessings xara πρόθεσιν αὐτοῦ 
The answer to this must be, that he adduces it in order to justify the 
principle which is concerned with the fore-ordaining, calling, justi- 
fying, and glorifying the κλητοί as described in chapter viii. But 


ROMANS ΙΧ. 9. 417 


surely this does not pertain to external privileges only, as enjoyed 
in the present world. 

Another view of this whole subject may be taken. We may sup- 
pose Paul by τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν to mean, that the promise concerning Isaac 
was typical of a future and spiritual seed, to be chosen on like prin- 
ciples. In other words; as not all the literal posterity of Abraham 
were selected to be heirs of the special covenant-promise made to the 
patriarch, but only Isaac was selected, so it is in respect to the new 
covenant. God does not select merely the literal seed of Abraham, 
_ but he chooses a spiritual seed of the father of the faithful to be the 
heirs of gospel blessings. In a word, selection, choice, was a principle 
of action in respect to the patriarch’s posterity ; choice or selection 
is still equally visible in dispensing the blessings of the new covenant. 
In this way Paul would be understood as saying, by τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν, that 
the ancient promise was as much as to say or equivalent to saying 
what follows, which contains an exhibition of the same principle. 

The amount of the whole in either way of explanation, is, that 
Paul, in order to illustrate and defend God’s proceedings in respect 
to bestowing spiritual blessings of the highest kind, adduces exam- 
ples from the Old Test. Scriptures, where the principle concerned is 
exactly the same as that which is concerned with the calling and 
glorifying of the κλητοί, viz., where the blessings bestowed are not 
conferred on the ground of being a natural descendant of Abraham, 
nor on the ground of merit or desert, but κατὰ πρόθεσιν Θεοῦ. Now 
certainly God can be no more unjust in great things than in small 
ones; and if he was not unjust in selecting the objects of his tem- 
poral favours κατὰ πρόθεσιν αὐτοῦ, why should we regard him as unjust 
in selecting the objects of his highest spiritual favours in the same 
way; that is, not according to claim or merit on the part of men (for 
these belong not to them), but according to reasons, good and suffi- 
cient ones, known only to himself? Such as are inclined to feel that 
this would be wrong on the part of God, and that it is in any measure 
proper for us to complain of this, will do well to read the sequel of 
this chapter with a candid, humble, inquiring mind. 

(9) ᾿Επαγγέλίας γὰρ .. vids, for this was the word of the pro- 
mise: “ According to this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a 
son,” Gen. xviii. 10, 14. This shows who the children of the pro- 
mise were, that are described in the preceding verse, viz., the de- 
scendants of Isaac the son thus promised. Hence the γάρ at the 
‘beginning of the verse. 2 Ὁ. 


418 ROMANS IX. 10. 


Κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον, according to this time. In Hebrew the whole 
phrase runs thus: ‘Oy Toys Tw Ww, 7 will surely return or 
come back to thee, when the time shall be renewed, Gen. xviii. 10. 
The word ‘7 seems to be simply an adjective, as the text now 
stands, and to mean living again, in the sense of being renewed. So 
Saadias, Tremellius, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, Winer, oe ‘Lholuck; 
comp. Gen, xvii. 21 and xviii. 14, Wib, The Sept. reads in this 
last Case, εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον ἀνωστρέψψω πρὸς σὲ εἰς ὥρας. What is meant 
by εἰς ὥρας, unless it be exactly, at the very hour, 1 am unable to con- 
jecture. In regard to τοῦτον (which seems to be put for 7°5), one 
almost spontaneously falls upon the conjecture, that the Sept. and 
Paul must have read 3 in Gen. xviii. 10, 14, instead of 9; which 
is by no means improbable, considering that the ancient manuscripts 
were destitute of vowel points, and that the two words ™ and ΠῚΠ 
are so nearly alike. Fritsche and others compare 731 NY3 with the 
ζῶν χρόνος οἵ Sophocles (Trach. 3.1159) where χαὶ πάρων vivis added (as 
they aver) in the way of explanation. Thus construed the sense would 
be present time, 2. e., when this time shall be again present. TReiche 
accepts this explanation as satisfactory; but Tholuck (Beitriige, &e. 
Ρ. 68, seq.), in answer to Fritsche, has shown good reason to doubt 
the correctness of it. Zé» χρόνος appears to mean flourishing age.—l 
would suggest another interpretation still, viz , as at life-giving time; 
in which case the meaning would be, that God would again address 
her as ἃ mother who wives life to, 2. ¢., bears children. Comp. the 
sense of 5 and ζάω, in the lexicons. 

(10) The apostle having thus shown that the promised seed was 
not all the natural descendants of Abraham, but only a select part of 
them, he now advances a step farther, and goes on to show that not 
only did God make a distinction κατὰ πρόθεσιν αὐτοῦ among the natural 
descendants of Abraham, but that even among thedescendants of him 
who was “ the Son of promise,” he made a like distinction; and this 
too, in a case where the respective merit or desert of the parties could 
not possibly be the ground of the distinction. Thus in respect to the 
descendants of Isaac, Jacob his younger son was chosen as the ob- 
ject of favour, and Esau the elder son, who according to the custom 
of the patriarchs had higher rights, was rejected. Yea, this recep- 
tion of the one to special favour and the rejection of the other were 
determined on before the children were born, 7. e., before they could 
have done either good or evil, or (in other words) before they could 
have possessed any merit or demerit. Consequently the πρόθεσις of 


ROMANS Ix. 10. 419 


God was iccording to his ἐκλογή and not ἐξ ἔργων or on the ground of 
merit. 

The reason why the apostle adds this example of God’s selecting 
the objects of his favour, to the one which he had already produced, 
seems to be this, viz., in order to prevent the objections which might 
be made in respect to the force of that example. The Jews might ~ 
say: ‘As to Ishmael, he was only the son of a bond-woman, and 
therefore had no good title to be an heir of promise; and as to the 
sons of Keturah, they were much younger than Isaac, who of course 
was entitled to the rights of primogeniture. On these grounds we 
may suppose the preference was given to Isaac.’ But in order to 
foreclose every thing of this nature, the apostle now produces an 
example of ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις. This effectually accomplishes his 
object. Esau was not only the son of Rebecca, the lawful, proper, 
and only wife of Isaac, but he was the elder son, and therefore 
entitled by usage to the rights of primogeniture. Yet notwithstand- 
ing all this, Jacob was preferred to him, and was chosen as the τέκνον 
τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. ; 

The bearing which all this has on the main subject of the apostle, 
is plain. ‘If God did, κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν, make such distinctions among 
the legitimate and proper children of Isaac, the son of promise, then 
the same God may choose, call, justify, and glorify those who are 
κλητοί in respect to the heavenly inheritance. If it is not unjust or 
improper, in one case, to distribute favours κατὰ πρόθεσιν αὐτοῦ, then 
it is not in another,’ 

Οὐ μόνον δέ, and not only ; an elliptical expression in itself, which 
has been filled out in different ways by different critics. The most 
natural supplement seems to be τοῦτο. Then the sentiment is: ‘Not 
only was such the case with Abraham, but also in respect to Re- 
becca, &e.’ The use of od μόνον δὲ denotes advance to more cogent 
reasons still. Οὐ μόνον δέ, καὶ ἀλλά means, but not only is that true 
which I have already said, διέ also, ἕο. Reiche and some other 
critics, with some versions, make the supplement after μόνον δέ to be 
thus: ‘Not only did Sarah obtain a special promise respecting her 
son, but Rebecca also.’ This is allowable; but the other mode 
seems to me more facile and more fraught with meaning. 

Ῥεβέκκα forms here a kind of anacoluthon, ἱ. e., the beginning of a 
sentence, the construction of which is afterwards changed, or (in 
other words) the sentence is not finished in the same manner in which 
it was begun. Here the natural grammatical construction would be, 


490 ROMANS Ix. 11. 


οὐ μόνον [δὲ τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ῥεβέκκῳ, ἐξ ἑνὸς xairny ἐχούσῃ... ἐῤῥήθη. .. 
ὅτι x. τ᾿ A. Instead however of ἱΡεβέχκῳ (Dat.), we have in the text 
Ῥεβέχκα (Nom.) with which ἔχουσα agrees. But the construction 
thus begun in the Nominative, is not carried through. Instead of 
associating the Nom. Ῥεβέκκα with some following verb of which it 
might be the subject, the verb ἐῤῥήθη is afterwards employed, and the 
Dative required by it is made by a pronoun referring to Ῥεβέχκα, 
viz., by αὐτῇ, This mode of construction is frequent in Hebrew, 
where what is called the Nom. absolute is employed, to which a pro- 
noun in the sequel refers ; which pronoun is put in the case in which 
the verb or the nature of the sentence requires it to stand. Comp. 
Acts vil. 40, ὁ Μωυσῆς οὗτος. . . τί γέγονον αὐτῷ. 

Ἔξ ἑνὸς κοίτην ἔχουσα, accipiens semen unius virt. Literally κοίτην 
means cubile, bed; figuratively however it is employed to designate 
concubitus ; compare the Hebrew YU N32”, concubitus seminis, 
(Gesen. effusio seminis), Lev. xv. 16, 32. xviii. 20, 23. xxii. 4. In 
Lev. xviii. 23. 722% alone is employed to designate the same idea. 
A clear case of such a usage, is in Num. vy. 20 (Sept.). Κοίτην ἔχουσα 
there appears to mean literally, concubitum habens; but the idea is 
conceiving.— Ἐξ ἑνός, designates appropriately by whom, 7. e., by one, 
viz. Isaac ; which last word immediately follows in the context. 

(11) Tae tllustrantis.— Γεννηθέντων, 86. παίδων, which the mind spon- 
taneously supplies, by recurring back to ἐξ ἑνὸς χοίτην ἔχουσα. The 
whole phrase in the verse is a construction with the Genitive abso- 
lute; which is a species of anacoluthon ; see N. Test. Gramm. ὃ 102. 

Μηδὲ. . « . xaxdv, neither having done any thing good or evil; a 
very important declaration in respect to its bearing on some of the 
controverted questions about hereditary depravity or original sin. It 
appears that when the words related in the next verse were spoken 
to Rebecca, the children in her womb had arrived to such a state or 
growth as that lifeand motion in them were perceived by the mother, 
Gen. xxv. 22, 23, 2. ¢, to the age of some five months, comp. Luke 
i. 24. At this period, then, the apostle declares that they had done 
neither good nor evil, i. e., they had as yet no positive moral character 
or (in other words) that there was as yet no development of their 
moral powers. The assertion is so clear and direct here, that I see 
not how the force of it can be fairly evaded. And with the principle 
here developed, the tenor of other texts agrees ; 6. 5.) Is. vii. 15,16, 
comp. viii. 4. Deut. i. 39. Jonah iy. 11, That some knowledge of law 
and its obligations should exist in order that positive sin can be com- 


ROMANS Ix. 1]. 421 


mitted, seems to be clearly decided by Rom. iv. 15, and to be plainly 
implied by James iv. 17. John ix. 41. 1 John iii. 4. Every man’s 
consciousness of the nature of moral guilt, moreover, seems spon- 
taneously to decide in accordance with these texts. But when 
children do arrive at such a growth of moral nature that they begin - 
positively to sin, the Scripture does not seem to have decided; I 
mean, that I have yet discovered no text where this point is fixed. 
The poetic and intensive expressions in Ps. li. 5, when compared with 
Ps. lyiii. 3, will hardly establish the doctrine which many have sup- 
posed it to establish. Gen. viil. 21 decides no more, than that men 
begin very early to commit sin; and John iii. 6. Eph. 1. 3, and 
other texts of the like nature, decide only that men in a natural 
state, 2. ¢., in an unregenerate or unsanctified state, are children of 
wrath and carnal; which must be true, since they actually need 
regeneration. But no texts of this class can be properly interpreted 
as definitely fixing the time when children begin to sin. 

The apostle, however, has here told us when sinning had NOT 
begun, in respect to Jacob and Esau. That they possessed powers 
or faculties, even in the womb, which were afterwards employed in 
committing sin when they were more fully developed, is undoubtedly 
true. But the power or faculty of sinning is one thing; the com- 
mission of sin another. Adam im paradise, before his fall, certainly 
possessed the power or faculty of sinning, (else how could he sin as 
he did?) yet he was not guilty of sin because he possessed such a 
power, but for the abuse of it. It is not therefore the power which 
the Creator has given us, which makes us sinners; it is the abuse of 
it. God may be, and is, the author of our power to sin; but he is 
not therefore the author of our sins. So young children may have 
all the powers adapted to sinning, without having yet sinned; for it 
will not be denied, that Jacob and Esau had the embryo of such 
powers in their early state, at the period when the apostle says that 
they had not committed any sin. And in the like way I should 
readily grant, that Jacob and Esau, even in their uterine state, had 
as a constituent part of their human nature an embryo susceptibility 
of feeling the power of sinful enticements; which in due time, and in 
the natural course of things, would be so developed as certainly to 
Jead them tosin. But susceptibility of excitement to sin, is not real 
and actual sin. Adam in Paradise, before his fall, had this suscep- 
tibility in some degree ; otherwise he never could have been tempted. 
But his fallen posterity possess this in a much higher degree, so that 


422 ROMANS Ix. ll. 


before regeneration, all their moral acts are sinful. Yet the apostle 
has decided in our text, that such acts do not take place before 
birth. Excitability in respect to forbidden objects must be yielded 
to before it becomes actual sin; or rather, the sin itself-is in the 
yielding, and not in the original disposition which God himself has 
given us. Disposition to sin, so far as it is created by our indulgence 
init, may fairly be put to our account and reckoned as sin. But to 
count that as sin, which the Maker of heaven and earth himself 
gave us, before all voluntary moral action, involves consequences 
that are of fearful aspect. If a constituent part of our original 
nature be siz, then who is the author of our nature? Is sin pre- 
dicable of the body, or of the soul? And whois the “ Father of our 
spirits?” But I must refer the reader to what is said relative to 
these topics, in my Excursus on Rom. ν. 12—19. 5 

The object of the apostle, in here saying that the children had 
done neither good nor evil, is very plain, viz., to cast light on or to 
confirm the truths which he had disclosed in viii. 283—39. There 
all things are represented as contributing to the good of the κατὰ 
πρόϑεσιν κλητοί, ver. 28, seq. Now if the Jew should object to this as 
being unaccountable, or as evincing partiality on the part of God, 
the apostle could of course foreclose this objection, by showing him 
that instances of the like nature (so far as the principle of them was 
concerned) are recorded in the Old Testament. In the case before 
us, the decision of God in respect to the future lot and privileges of 
Jacob and Esau, was not made by reason of any claims of merit or 
any grounds of demerit; for it was made before the children were 
born, and before they had done either good or evil. 

It should be noted that 7 here is less in accordance with the usual 
idiom than μηδὲ (New Test. Grammar ὃ 151. 2); which the Text. 
Recept. has. It is, however, well supported by authority. 

"lve... . ἐκ καλοῦντος, that the purpose of God according to election 
might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. Ἢ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν 
πρόϑεσις means, a purpose which proceeds from one’s own free choice, 
one to which he is moved by internal, and not merely by eaternal 
causes or motives. It means here, a purpose which God did not 
entertain because he was moved to it by any thing which Jacob or 
Esau had done, or would do (οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων), but for reasons which he 
has not disclosed, and which pertain merely to himself. But let the 
reader beware, how he represents or even imagines these reasons 
to be arbitrary or ungrounded. This would be to represent the 


ROMANS ΙΧ. 12, 13. 423 


divine conduct as utterly inconsistent with infinite wisdom and good- 
ness. 

Οὐκ ἐξ ἐργων, not of works, t. ¢., not because of merit, not because 
of obedience yielded to the law of works, ὁ. 6.» the law requiring 
good works.— AAW ἐκ καλοῦντυς, but of him that calleth; 7. ¢., the ad- 
mission of the one to privileges, and the rejection of the other from 
them, proceed not from their personal desert, but from him who calls, 
ὦ, é., chooses or selects men to be the objects of his special favour for 
reasons within himself. That such is the sentiment here, seems very 
plain; for the apostle has just asserted, that the decision of God in 
respect to the future condition and privileges of Jacob and Esau, 
was made before they were born, and before they had done either 
good or evil; and that it was so made, in order that God’s κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν 
πρόθεσις might be stable, μένη, Heb. V3. 

- (12) But what is the thing decided in this case? 'Ὃ μείζων... 
ἐλάσσονι, the elder shall serve the younger; or rather the first-born 
shall serve the younger, t.e., he who by right of primogeniture would 
take the precedence, he shall in fact be inferior or take the lower 
place. The precedence then of Jacob is established by this declara- 
tion; but in what respect? 

(13) In a temporal one, it would seem, so far as this instance is 
concerned. Ti... ἐμίσησα, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have 
1 hated; %. e., on Jacob have I bestowed privileges and blessings, such 
as are the proofs of affection; Ihave treated him as one treats a 
friend whom he loves; but from Esau have I withheld these privileges 
and blessings, and therefore treated him as one is wont to treat those 
whom he dislikes; comp. Mal. i. 2, 3, from which the quotation here 
is made, and where the prophet adds to the last clause ("Hout ἐμίσησα) 
the following words, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste. 
That the whole refers to the bestowment of temporal blessings and 
the withholding of them, is clear not only from this passage, but 
from comparing Gen. xxv. 23. xxvii. 27—29, 37—-40. As to éur- 
σησα, its meaning here is rather privative than positive. When the 
Hebrews compared a stronger affection with a weaker one, they 
called the first love and the other hatred; comp. Gen. xxix. 30, 31. 
Deut. xxi. 15. Prov. xiii. 24. Matt. vi. 24. Luke xiv. 26 comp. with 
Matt. x. 37. Glass. Rhet. Sac. lib. IIL. tr. ὃ. can. 19. 

After all, this does not answer the question: What is the ultimate 
object of the apostle in making his appeal to such an instance of κατ᾽ 
ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις Must not this answer be, that he does so in order 


424 ROMANS Ix. 13. 


to justify and support what he had said in chap. vii. 283—39? And 
surely what he has there said does not relate merely to temporal 
condition or privileges, but to effectual calling, to justifying and glo- 
rifying. All however which is decided is, that God, in either case, 
does not bestow his blessings on the ground of merit, (for how can 
any sinner be blessed on such a ground ?) but for reasons known only 
to himself, and which are ab intra, not ab extra. 

Those who contend against this sentiment, contend against what 
is every day exhibited before their eyes. Why was this man born 
white, and that one black? Why is this child born and nurtured in 
the bosom of a pious family, and that one in the midst of robbers and 
murderers? ‘The children had done neither “ good nor evil,” when 
their lot was decided. This no one can deny. Then, in the next 
place, is not their eternal condition connected with their means of 
grace, their pious nurture, their present condition and associations in 
life? And who placed them in their present condition ? ᾿ 

How easy now to multiply such questions indefinitely; and the 
answer must at last resolve the whole into divine sovereignty. The 
world is full of that which teaches this doctrine. All nature speaks 
it, and speaks it loudly too; no less so than the Bible itself. Yet 
with all this, the Bible plainly recognizes the freedom of men, and 
attributes to themselves their own destruction. The world say that 
there is contradiction here; but if there be, the naturalist has as 
really to contend with its difficulties as the advocate for revelation. 
However, there can in reality be no contradiction or absurdity in two 
things which are both true. All the difficulty lies in us. Being 
ignorant of the manner in which predestination and free agency can 
be reconciled, we are prone to think that they are irreconcileable. 
When will men learn, that their ignorance is not the measure of 
truth! 

One cannot but contemplate with regret the efforts of some cri- 
tics to evade the plain, philological (and for my own part I must say, 
inevitable) meaning of the chapter on which we are commenting. 
It seems to me, however, that I perceive in some sober-minded and 
judicious men, a radical mistake in their conceptions respecting 
predestination. ‘They transfer to it analogies from the material world; 
and then they seem to feel that it is but another name for fate or des- 
tiny. They conceive of a decretum absolutum as involved in it, 
which, as they view it, is neither more nor less than a decree without 
any reason, a mere arbitrary decision. With such views, they reject 


ROMANS Ix. 14. 425 


the doctrine of predestination ; and rightly, if it does indeed involve 
all this. That this however is a very imperfect and erroneous view 
of the subject, is what I fully believe, and what I have endeavoured 
to show in the statements above. 

Finally, I remark, that those who refer the preferences given to 
Jacob over Esau so exclusively to temporal blessings and privileges, 
as to maintain that the sentiment of the whole passage can prove at 
the most merely that such privileges and blessings are granted to 
Christians, and nothing more, by the election of God, would do well 
to read over again the first five verses of this chapter, where Jews, 
in possession of all these privileges, are counted as reprobates and as 
exposed to the anathema of the Lord Jesus Christ. Does the election 
of God then amount to nothing more, than to leave men after all to 
perish who are his chosen saints ? 


CHAP. IX. 14—29. 


THE sum of the sentiments advanced in verses 14—29, appears to be this: ‘No one has any 
right to call in question the disposal which the Creator, Governor, and rightful Lord of all things 
makes of his creatures, or to charge him with injustice on account of it. It does not become the 
creature to find fault with his Maker, in respect to the manner in which he has been made. But 
not to make the appeal solely to theright as a sovereign, which God has over all his creatures ; 
what ground of objection can be alleged against the divine proceedings, when God endures with 
much long-suffering the rebellious and contumacious, not speedily cutting them off as they de- 
serve, but waiting, and giving them space for repentance? Comp. Rev. ii. 21. ¥ Pet. iii. 9. Ezek. 
xviii. 23, 32. xxxiii, 11. Lam. iii. 23. 1 Pet. iii. 20. Why should we complain, if God, in order 
to display his abounding mercy, chooses from among the perishing, both Jews and Gentiles, 
those on whom he will bestow his grace? The ancient Scriptures do repeatedly testify that he 
would do this,’ 

All this is in the way of answer to the objection made by the Jew against the assertions and 
arguments of the apostle. Paul affirms, that ‘ God is at liberty to choose, and does choose, the 
objects of his grace when and where he pleases ; that he selects these from among the Gentiles 
as well as the Jews; that he is bound by no promises or covenant, to contine his goodness to 
the natural descendants of Abraham; and that in abandoning some of the impenitent to the 
just reward of their deeds, in permitting them to become hardened under the dealings of his 
providence or his grace, and waiting with long-suffering for their amendment, God does nothing 
to which any one can justly object, or with which he can reasonably find fault. 


426 ROMANS ΙΧ. 14. 


All this, too, is plainly connected with the subject discussed in viii. 28, seq.; and it is de- 
signed as an illustration and defence of the principle there avowed, viz., the sovereignty of God 
in selecting the objects of his mercy, not his arbitrary choice of them, but a choice which rests on 
grounds unknown to us. Surely verse 23 here does not respect the mere external call or privi- 
lege of the saints ; for how can ἃ προητοίμασεν εἰς ὃ ὁ ξ av be soconstrued? If thisis clear (and 
I cannot think any considerate and candid man will venture to deny that it is), then it follows 
of course, that the antithesis in verse 22 has respect, not to temporal ὀργήν merely. but to future 
misery also, é. 6., to the whole penalty of sin. If all this be clear, then is it equally so, that the 
object of the apostle in this chapter, is not merely to vindicate the divine proceedings in regard 
to giving or withholding favours in the present world, but also in respect to the future lot of both 
saints and sinners. When saints are made the objects of grace, the exceeding richness of that 
grace is displayed ; and when sinners are hardened and become prepared for destruction under 
the dealings of God’s providence and grace with them, it is still true that the long-suffering of 
God is manifested in deferring their punishment. So the texts cited above lead us to conclude 
respecting God’s dealings with them; and so all the views of his benevolent character which the 
Bible gives, would naturally lead us to conclude. 

Whatever then may be the nature of his agency in regard to the hardening of sinners and 
fitting them for destruction, we are necessarily led to the conclusion, that it is not such as makes 
him chargeable with the guilt of their sins in any manner or measure ; it is not such as detracts 
from their free agency, the voluntariness of their transgressions, the moral guilt which they incur, 
or the responsibility which follows it. The Scriptural doctrine of reprobaiion (as itis called) 
seems then to be this, viz., that God, for reasons not given to us, does bestow his special grace 
on some, i, 6., hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, while he leaves others voluntarily to harden 
themselves and to become ripe for destruction, although he waits long to be gracious, and does 
not execute his judgments as speedily as they deserve them. 

If any still decline to receive this as the sentiment of the present chapter, and maintain that 
the whole has reference merely to the distinctions made by Providence in the present world, it is 
incumbent on them to show that the context, 6. g., chap. viii. 29, seq., leads to such a discussion. 
It is also incumbent on them to show, how God can any more be justified for such a distributing 
and withholding of his favours in respect to the present world, than in respect to the future world 
The Saviour says (Luke xvi. 10): “ He that is unjust in the least, is unjust in much.” If the 
distributing and withholding favours in the manner stated by the apostle, be in itself unjust, God 
can no more be vindicated for so doing in respect to the present world, than in respect to the 
future world. Indeed we cannot separate the one from the other. In respect to those who deny 
that the present chapter has a reference to a future state, let me ask, whether the circumstances 
in which men are placed in the present world, have not a bearing on the future world? One is 
born and nurtured in the bosom of a pious family, and lives surrounded by pious influence, all 
of which is the ordering of Providence in respect to his lot; another is born in a family of thieves 
and murderers, and nurtured among them, and lives without God and without hope in the 
world. Has the eternal state of these individuals no intimate connection with such circumstances? 
One is born in a heathen land, and another in a Christian; surely their own act did not con- 
trol the place or circumstances of their birth. Has this no bearing on their eternal condition? 
Is God just then, who makes such distinctions? It is a question we must meet; substantially 
we have to meet it, if we resort even to 7'heism for a refuge from difficulties. And when those 
who hold to the mere temporal relation of the chapter before us, can clear up the difficulties 
that attend this, even on their own principles; then it will be time tospeak with more con- 
fidence than they can now with propriety feel, against the views of such as differ from them. 


(14) Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; language which Paul puts into the mouth of the 
objecting Jew.— M4 ἀδικία παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ ; avery natural question for 
one whose mind is perplexed and offended with the doctrineof divine 
sovereignty, and the dispensation of favours on the part of God xara 


κῃ 


ROMANS Ix. 14. 427 


πρόθεσιν αὐτοῦ. If God has dispensed them independently of any merits 
on the part of man, and for reasons known only to himself, it seems 
to an unhumbled and carnal man that he has dispensed them in a 
merely arbitrary mann: r, without any regard to justice or propriety. 
low easy it is to feel difficulties and raise questions on this perplex- 
ing subject, fact shows. From the time of the apostle down to the 
present hour, the same questions have been repeated and the same 
difficulties felt. That some of those who have maintained the doc- 
trine of divine sovereignty, have, at times, given occasion for their 
opponents to charge on them representations of such a nature as to 
make predestination amount to fate or destiny, and κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρό- 
θεσις to amount to arbitrary decision—is what I feel unable to deny. 
In some treatises on reprobation, enough that stands exposed to such 
a charge, or to something very much like it, may be found. But to 
argue from such expressions as τὸν ᾿᾽Εσαῦ ἐμίσησα, an actual hatred, like 
that which men cherish toward one another, would be a great abuse 
indeed of the sound principles of exegesis. On the same ground, one 
might prove that it is our duty actually and positively to hate 
father, mother, wife, children, brethren, sisters, yea, and our own 
lives or ourselves also, and that we cannot be Christians without so 
doing, if he should urge the literal meaning of Luke xiv. 26, and 
other texts of the same tenor. God cannot hate more humano any 
thing which he has made, and therefore he cannot hate man, who 
is made in his own image. Consult for a moment, Rom. v. 8—10. 
John iii. 16, 17. Tit. πὶ. 4,5. So the Wisdom of Solomon xi. 24: 
“'Thou lovest all beings, and abhorrest nothing which thou hast 
made, neither hatest any thing which thou hast created.” But still, 
God may and does hate sin; he may and will punish it; he may 
treat sinners therefore as if he hated them, 7. ¢., he may inflict evil 
or suffering upon them. In the future world, he never does this but 
in consequence of actual guilt, and in proportion to that guilt; but in 


_the present world, trouble and sorrow may be brought on men as the 


instruments of trying them, of purifying them, of humbling them, 
and this without being proportioned by the simple principles of 
retribution; for sufferings and trials here are not always in the way 
of simple retribution. In all this God acts κατὰ πρόθεσιν αὐτοῦ: yet 
certainly not in an arbitrary manner and without any good reason 
(therefore not on the ground of a decretum absolutum in the rigid 
sense of this phrase), but still, in a manner which we cannot explain, 
because his particular reasons are as yet unknown to us. But car 


428 ROMANS ΙΧ. 15, 16. 


our want of knowledge establish against him a charge of ἀδυψίφα 
Most surely not. 

(15) That God does dispense his favours without being moved thereto 
by any merit on the part of him who receives them, is clearly estab- 
lished, and is designed to be confirmed, by the quotation which Paul 
makes from the Old Testament.—Mj γένοιτο. . . . οἰκτείρω, not at all; 
for he saith to Moses: “I will have mercy on whomsoever I will have 
mercy; and I will show compassion to whomsoever I will show com- 
passion.” In other words: ‘I choose the objects of favour where I 
please, for reasons known only to myself. None of the human race 
have merited my approbation and reward; and none being entitled 
to them on the ground of merit, I may properly bestow my favours 
where and when I please.’ Why is not this both true and just? 
Is there any ἀδικίω here? Out of a hundred criminals who have all 
deserved death, may not a wise and benevolent government, for rea- 
sons entirely within itself, choose some as the objects of pardon, 
while others are given up to the punishment which the law enjoins? 
I am fully aware of the opposition made by the natural heart to 
such a proceeding on the part of God; but Lam not aware how the 
fact that God does this can be reasonably denied, nor how injustice 
can with any propriety be char ged upon him because he does it. 

The quotation is from Ex. xxxiii. 19. , The reasoning of the apo- 
stle is simply this : ‘God cannot be unjust because he diciebutes his 
favours κατὰ πρόθεσιν αὐτοῦ, and without reference to the merits of the 
individuals concerned. The Old Testament inculcates the same 
doctrine; and to the decisions of their own Scriptures the Jews surely 
will not object.’ The γώρ at the beginning of the verse intimates 
that the writer applies the quotation in ἐμὲ manner. 

(16) "Age ody... . Θεοῦ, consequently or it follows, therefore, [that 
ἐκλογή 15 not cbenined by him that willeth, or him that runneth, but 
through the mercy of God. ‘That ἐκλογή is here to be supplied, may 
be seen by looking back to verse 11. *The Gen. ϑέλοντος, % +. A. 18 
the Gen. of agent or cause.—@édor0g probably has reference to the 
wish of Abraham in Gen. xvii. 18. xxi. 11. Teéovrog seems to refer 
to Esau’s haste to prepare food for Isaac; see Gen. xxvii. 1 seq. 
᾿Ελεοῦντος refers to the quotation Paul had just made. The sentiment 
of the whole is, that God bestows his favours not because they are 
first merited or acquired by effort, either of strong desire or of strenu- 
ous action, but because he has mercy on those who are the objects 
of his favour. This does not imply (as it has frequently been thought 


——— ἈΠ ὁ κὰν 


ἊΨ ΝΥ ee Ce 


ROMANS Ix. 16. 429 


to imply), that let men merit ever so much, ὦ. 6.,) desire salvation 
ever so much, or labour for it ever so strenuously, all this will be 
of no account with God; and that he will bestow mercy in a manner 
merely arbitrary, and irrespectively of all works or character on the 
part of the sinner. On the contrary it implies, that before sinners 
are made the objects of his special mercy, they are “dead in tres- 
passes and sins,” that they are “by nature children of wrath and 
disobedience,” that “what is born of the flesh is flesh,” that “the 
carnal mind is enmity against God, is not subject to his law, nor 
indeed can be ;” consequently, that the case here supposed (of previ- 
ous merit and effort) nevercexists. And in fact, it never does exist. 
It is God’s mercy which /irst disposes sinners to will and to do (Phil. ii. 
13. Eph. i. 1. Rom. v. 6—10). How then can his mercy be 
bestowed in consequence of their previous merits? The thing is 
plainly beyond reasonable question; it is impossible. 

All this, however, does not disprove the doctrine that good works 
will be rewarded ; which is certainly and plainly a Scripture doc- 
trine. But what are good works? ‘Those which are done before 
conversion, or after it? Surely the latter. But in respect to the 
reward of Christians for evangelical good works, the apostle is not, 
here speaking. What he says, has respect to the fore-knowing, fore- 
ordaining, calling, justifying, and glorifying, mentioned in vii. 29, 
seq. All this is not on the ground of merit, but of pure gratuity ; 
and consequently it is τοῦ ἐλεοῦντος Θεοῦ. The fact that good works 
themselves are rewarded, is itself a part of this pure system or plan 
of grace; for it is only the works of those who are sanctified, which 
are reputed good in the Scripture sense, 7. ¢., holy, acceptable to God; 
and even the best of these are imperfect, so that they could not claim 
any reward on their own account and on principles of legal merit. 
The law allows of no imperfection. It requires us “to love God with 
all the heart, and our neighbour as ourselves.” Now as no man on 
earth has ever done this (Jesus only excepted), so no man has ever 


been in a condition to advance a claim to reward_on the ground of 


law, in any age or country of the world. Consequently, the fact that 
the good works of saints are rewarded, is a matter of gratuity and 
not of legal claim. But still, this part of the subject is not what the 
apostle is here discussing; and consequently what he says here, is 
not to be regarded as at all interfering with or contradicting what he 
says on the subject of good works being rewarded, in other parts of 
his writings. 


480 ROMANS Ix. 17. 


As to the general sense of ϑέλοντος, it indicates desire, wishing. 
Τρέχοντος is used to designate strenuous effort. In such a sense it 
often designates Christian efforts; e.g., 1 Cor. ix. 24, 26. Heb. xii. 1. 
Phil. ii. 16. iii. 14. Gal. ii. 2. v. 7, &e. ᾿Ελεοῦντος here is designed 
to convey the idea, that our blessings originate from God’s compas- 
sion, love, and mercy, and are not bestowed on account of our own 
deserts. To construe this in such a manner as to exclude the idea 
of gratuitous reward for obedience and good works, in the sense 
above stated, would be to depart widely from the meaning of the 
writer; whose design is to affirm, that man’s salvation is to be attri- 
buted solely to the mercy of God, and not to any merit of his own. 

It may be proper to remark, that so plain is the sentiment above 
exhibited by the words of the apostle here, that some critics very far 
removed from belief in the doctrines of the Reformation, have felt 
compelled to acknowledge that Paul has here advanced the doctrine 
of election or decrees. So Ammon, Riickert, Usteri, and others. — 

(17) The preceding verse, although comprising a sentiment which 
is very disagreeable to the natural heart and to the pride of unsanc- 
tified men, is still more easily acquiesced in than the one now before 
us, which has been the theme of great contention, and the occasion 
of not a little unguarded and hazardous assertion. Let us first in- 
vestigate the language | 

Λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφὴ τῷ Φαραώ, for the Scripture saith to Pharaoh, 
instead of the formula for G'od saith to Pharaoh. So Gal. iii. 8, 22. 
iv.30. What the Scripture says, God says, for πᾶσα ἡ γραφὴ ϑεόπνευ- 
ores, 1. 6... it is the word of God. So the Rabbins frequently exchange 
the two formulas of quotation, D¥1 TDS, the Name [God] says, and 
3IN3N WN, the Scripture says; both of which are designated by the 
abbreviations M’—The γάρ here stands before a quotation which 
is designed to confirm the doctrine of the divine sovereignty. 

"Orr εἰς . . . δύναμιν μου, for this very purpose have I roused thee up, 
that I might exhibit my power. Paul has departed from the Septua- 
gint version, which runs thus: ἕνεκεν τοῦτο duerqendns, ἵνα ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν cos 
τὴν ἰσχύν μου; 80 that Paul substitutes ἐξήγειρα for διετηρήλης, ὅπως for 
ἵγα, and δύναμιν for ἰσχύν. The apostle seems plainly to have made a 
translation of his own, independently of the Septuagint ; and one 
which, on the whole, was better adapted to the purpose of his argu- 
ment here, and equally accordant with the original Ilebrew, or 
rather, more strictly accordant with it. 

For ascertaining the sense then of ἐξήγειρα (on which the tenor of 


ROMANS ΙΧ. 17. 431 


the whole passage depends), we must not take διετηρήϑης [ὉΥ a commen- 
tary on it here, inasmuch as the apostle has rejected this verb and 
preferred another, for the sake (as it would seem) of a nearer ac- 
cordance with the meaning of the original Hebrew in this particular 
passage. What then is the sense of ἐξεγείρω, as employed in Hellen- 
istic Greek? Passow has not inserted this word in his classical 
lexicon; although it is certainly a classical word, for Xenophon 
employs it, Cyrop. VIII. 7. 2. In the Septuagint it is a very com- 


-mon word, being used some seventy times. In none of these cases 
does it mean to create, to produce, to raise up, in the sense of bring- 


ing into being, &c.; so that those who construe ἐξήγειρά σε, 1 have 
created thee or brought thee into existence (Beza: Feci ut existeres), 
do that which is contrary to the Hellenistic wsus loquendi. Augus- 
tine, Calvin, Gomar, Parzus, and even Reiche, defend the same 
opinion as Beza. 

In the Septuagint, ἐξεγείρω is employed throughout in the sense 
of arousing, exciting, rousing up, waking up, from, &ce., with slight 
shades of variation in meaning, according to the connection and the 
adjuncts of the verb. Ἀρετὴ it is employed by the Septuagint 
to translate the Hebrew ΤΠ, to rouse up, or to wake up, t. 6.5) from 
sleep, Ps. iii. 5. Ixxii. 20. cxxxviii. 18. Jer. xxxi. 26. li. 39. Dan: ΧΙ, 
2. In the like manner it stands for (2! to wake up or rouse up from 
sleep; Gen. xxviii. 16. xli. 22. Judg. xvi. 15, 21. Ps. Ixxvii. 71. 
With these meanimgs it is used intransitively. But the principal 
use of it is transitive; in which case it is employed to designate the 
idea of rousing up one’s self to action, exciting or rousing up others 
to action, exciting or rousing up any thing, animate or inanimate, to 
do this or that; ὁ. g., Judges v. 12. Ps. vii. 7. xxxiv. 26. lvi. 11. 
Ixxix. 3. cvii. 2. Cant. iv. 16. Jer. ]. 41. Joel iii. 9. Zech. xiii. 7, 
&c.; and so in the like manner forty-two times; see Trommii Con- 
cord. in verbum, No. 11. In all these cases it corresponds to the 
Hebrew VW, VY, &e. [ἢ seven other cases it corresponds to O%, 
when this word is used in a sense altogether synonymous with that 
of *Y, ὁ. g., Num. x. 35. 2 Sam. xii. 11. 1 Kings xi. 14. Est. viii. 
5. Ps. exviil. 62. Hab. i. 6. Zech. xi. 16. Throughout all these, 
the idea is uniform, viz., that of rousing, exciting, stirring up, ren- 
dering active, urging to activity, in a word, in the sense of bringing 
out of a state of rest or inaction or inefficiency into a contrary state, 
i. ¢., in the sense of exciting. 

Twice only have the Seventy employed ἐξήγειρα, where the mean- 


432 ROMANS XI. 17. 


ing night perhaps be thought doubtful. In Prov. xxv. 24, ἄνεμος .. 
ἐξεγείρει νέφη, the wind raiseth up clouds. The Hebrew verb is 22in, 
begetteth or bringeth forth. But the sense of ἐξεγείρω here in the | 
Septuagint, is plainly the usual one. So also in Ezek. xxi. 16. 
(Heb. xxi. 21), ἐξεγείρεται corresponds to 11¥9 (from 7); but still it 
has the sense of excite, and this meaning corresponds substantially 
with the Hebrew, although not literally. 

In the New Testament we have only one example besides that 
before us, where ἐξεγείρω is used, viz., 1 Cor. vi. 14, where it is clearly 
used to designate the action of rousing from the sleep of death, 
raising or exciting from a state of inaction or death. 

On the whole, then, the sense of the Greek word is altogether 
clear, and subject to no well grounded doubt. It means to rouse up, 
to excite, to stir up, in any manner or for any purpose. But does the 
Hebrew word in Ex. ix. 16, which corresponds to ἐξήγειρα, admit of 
such a sense. 

The Hebrew word is ‘P7290, Hiphil of 72%; which usually 
means (in Kal) to stand, to stand fast, to continue, to stand up, &e. 
In Hiphil (ΤΡ), it means to make to stand, to place, also to keep 
standing, to persevere or continue in standing. Tholuck and others 
have laboured to show that ἜΠΟΣ has the uswal Hiph. sense in 
Ex. ix. 10. That the Hebrew word might have such a sense, is 
sufficiently plain from 1 Kings xv. 4. 2 Chr. ix. 8. Prov. xxix. 4. 
2 Chr. xxxv. 2. And so the Kal conjugation not unfrequently means 
to continue, to remain in standing: 6. g., Ex. ix. 28. Lev. xiii. 5. 
Dan. x.17. But although the Hebrew word ‘F75¥1 might have 
the sense which Tholuck and others assign to it, yet the Greek word 
ἐξήγειζα, Which Paul uses, can hardly have such a sense put upon it. 
I have been able to find no example of a usus loquendi that would 
justify this exegesis. 

The principal question still remains: Has TN ever the sense 
of exciting, arousing, like the ἐξήγειρα of the apostle? If so, then 
we may presume the apostle chose this Greek word, in deliberate 
preference to the διετηρήθης of the Septuagint. 

Instances of this nature are clear. So in Neh. vi. 7, M75)4, 
thou hast roused up or excited the prophets, &e. So Dan. xi. 11, 13, 
TOYMN and he shall excite or rouse up a great multitude, &c. We 
can have little reason, then, to doubt that the apostle had such a 
meaning of ‘AIP in view, when he rendered it ἐξήγειρα ; for this 
Greek word is fairly susceptible of no other meaning. In accord- 


ROMANS ΙΧ. 18, 19. 433 


ance therefore with this result respecting the meaning of ἐξεγείρω, L 
have translated thus: For this very purpose have I roused thee up. 

"Orws.... τῇ γῇ, that I might show forth my power and declare 
my name in all the earth or in all the land, viz. of Egypt. The 
consequence of Pharaoh’s conduct was, that the Hebrews were 
brought out of Egypt by signal divine interposition, exhibited in the 
various plagues inflicted on Egypt after the declaration recorded 
here, 7. ¢., the hail, the locust, the extraordinary darkness, the smit- 
ing of the first born among the Egyptians, the drowning of Pharaoh 
and his host in the Red Sea, &c., Ex. ix. 16, seq. Such interposi- 
tions caused the power and-glory of Jehovah to be known through 
all the land of Egypt. Or if all the earth be construed as having’ a 
still more extensive sense, one might justify this by observing, that 
the Scriptures themselves now diffused so widely through the world, 
the Koran read and revered by many millions, the Greek author 
Artapanus (Euseb. Prep. Evang. IX. 29), also Diodorus Siculus 
(Bibl. III. 39), and the Latin Trogus (Justin. Hist. XXXVI. 2), 
all speak of the wonders which were done in Egypt, and the over- 
throw of Pharaoh there. et 

(18) "Aga ody... . σκληρύνει, therefore hath he mercy on whom he 
will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. A conclusion of 
the apostle’s, and not the.words of the objector, as some haye inti- 
mated. This is clear from what is immediately subjoined by Paul: 
"Ege?s οὖν μοι, x +. 43 which of course implies, that what precedes had 
been spoken by the apostle, and not by the objector. 

On the nature and force of the conclusion here drawn, I have al- 
ready remarked in commenting on verse 16. As to σκληρύνει, Ram- 
bach, Carpzov, and Ernesti have endeavoured to show that it means 
here to deal hardly with. They appeal to 2 Chron. x. 4, and Job 
Xxx1x. 16 in order to confirm this; but in the first instance the sense 
is to make hard, to render grievous; in the second, the Hebrew is 
nw and. the Sept. ἀποσκληρύνω, and the sense harmonizes substan- 
tially with the obvious one in the verse before us. [ see, therefore, 
no proper philological method of construing σκληρύνει, but in the way 
already intimated above. , 

(19) Eger ody... . ἀνθέστηκε; Thou wilt say to me, then: Why doth 
he still find fault, for who hath resisted his will? The apostle ex- 
pected, as a matter of course, that the principles which he had just 
asserted would be met with objections such as he now produces. On 


what ground did he expect this? It was doubtless because he had 
ι 2Ὲ 


484 ROMANS Ix. 20. 


said something which seemed to imply what the objector here inti- 
mates. “ Whom he will, he hardeneth,” says Paul. ‘Then why 
blame men for being hardened? How is this inconsistent with what 
God wills?’ is the reply of the objector; and this contains a senti- 
ment, which has been repeated from the time when Paul wrote his 
epistle, down to the present hour. The objection seems to be for- 
midable at first view; yet all its seeming importance is derived from 
earrying along to the consideration of the divine dealings towards us, 
analogies borrowed from causeand effect inrespect to material things 
It does not follow, because God by his infinite goodness and almighty 
power will convert the wicked deeds of the sinner into means of pro- 
moting his own glory, that the sinner may not be called to an account 
and punished for the evil which he intended. It does not follow 
because a wise and benevolent government may convert the crime of © 
some individuals into a means of furthering the public good, that the 
criminals in question do not deserve punishment. Supposing then 
that there is a sense, in which sin is made even the instrument of 
accomplishing the wise and holy purposes of God and the greatest 
good of his creatures, it does not follow, that the sinner who had 
malignant purposes in view is not deserving of punishment, nor that 
there is not an important sense in which he has resisted the will of God. 

(20) Μενοῦνγε, at vero, verum enimvero, but still, however. This 
compound particle is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in 
Luke xi. 28. and Rom. x. 18. Suidas explains it by τὸ ἀληϑές, or 
μᾶλλον μὲν οὖν, 1. e., verily or the rather then. Here the sense seems 
to be then rather ; and the construction or sense of the passage is 
thus: ‘ Then, 2. e., in case you do thus say, I may rather say, ὃ. 6.» 
I have a still better right to say, Who art thou, &c.?—) τίς εἶ 
... Θεῷ; who art thou that repliest against God, 7. e., who sayest 
something that charges him with acting wrongly or improperly? It 
will be ohserved here, that the apostle, in answer tothe objector, does 
not endeavour at all to explain how it is that God should harden 
sinners, and yet-sinners be guilty of their own ruin; in other words, 
he does not attempt any metaphysical conciliation of divine sove- 
reignty and control with human freedom and moral responsibility. 
He evidently takes for granted that the facts which he had been 
stating were true, and could not be contradicted. Hence he finds 
fault with the objector, because he charges God rashly and irreve- 
rently with having dealt hardly or unjustly by his creatures. He 
continues this remonstrance in the sequel, by quoting from the Old 


ROMANS Ix. 90, 435 


Testament and applying to the object before him passages, which 
serve’strongly to confirm the right of the Creator on the one hand 
to dispose of his creatures, and the duty of his creatures on the other 
to bow in submission before him. Would it not be well for those 
who are to teach the doctrines of Paul, at the present time, to walk 
in his steps, and to deal with objectors in the same manner as he has, 
by showing them their presumption from the Scripture, rather than 
by appealing to metaphysical explanations in order to remove the 
difficulties suggested ? 

Μὴ ἐρεῖ... οὕτως ; shall the thing formed say to him who formed 
it, why hast thou made me thus? A quotation ad sensum from the 
passage in Is. xlv. 9, or xxix. 16; for it does not literally follow the 
words of either. The design of this quotation is, to stop the mouth 
of the objector who inquires: “ Why doth he find fault then, for 
who hath resisted his will?’ The implication in this of wrong on 
the part of God, in bestowing blessings on some which he withholds 
from others, and in advancing some to glory while he leaves others to 
hardness of heart and to the punishment consequent upon it,—this 
implication the apostle meets by appeal to the language of the 
Scriptures, in regard to the sovereignty of God over the works of his 
hands: ‘ Has the creature a right to call in question the Creator, by 
whose power he was formed, and by whose goodness he is pre- 
served and nurtured? Should he reproach his Creator, because he 
has endowed him with the nature which he possesses?’ It is as 
much as to say: ‘ Even supposing there was some ground for the ob- 
jection which you make, I might reply in the language of Scripture 
and ask, whether it is proper and becoming for a creature to summon 
-the Creator before his tribunal, and to pass sentence of condemna- 
tion upon him.’ Viewed in this light, it is a kind of argumenium ad 
hominem ; applicable indeed to all who make the like objection in 
the like spirit, but specially adapted to stop the mouth of the haughty 
and presumptuous Jew, who, in Paul’s time, was indignant that God 
should be represented as making the Gentiles the objects of his spe- 
cial favour. In appealing, however, to the sovereignty of God the 
Creator, Paul cannot with any propriety be considered as asserting or 
intimating, that God is arbitrary in any of his dealings with his crea- 
tures, or that he ever makes any arrangement in respect to them with- 
out wise, and good, and sufficient reasons. It would be altogether in- 
congruous to suppose, that the apostle did ever think or assert, that a 
Leing infinitely holy, and wise, and just, and good, would act without 


436 ROMANS IX. 21, 22. 


the best of reasons for acting; although, indeed, these reasons might ° 
not be given to us. It should be remarked here, also, that it is only ὦ 
when a proud and contumacious spirit lifts up itself, like that of the 
Jew in the context, that an appeal to a direct and sovereign right of 
God, is made by the sacred writers, in order to abash and repress 
such arrogant assumption. 

(21) But one quotation does not satisfy the apostle’s ardour to re- 
press the objector. He makes a second one (ad sensum again, not 
ad literam) from Jer. xviii. 6, comp. ver. 4, which by another image 
inculeates the same sentiment as before. ~ ‘H οὐκ. .. ἀτιμίαν; Hath 
not the potter power over the clay, to make out of the same lump one 
vessel to honour and another to dishonour? 7. ¢., one vessel for a use - 
which is deemed honourable, and another for one deemed dishonour- 
able; comp. Jer. xviii. 4.‘ Even so (the apostle would say) are all 
men in the hands of God, and at his disposal;’ comp. Jer. xviii. 6. 
In other words: ‘ Who can call in question his right to dispose of us 
as it seems good in his sight? ‘The indecorum and contumacy of so 
doing must be apparent to all.’ 

The Jew, however, regarded his nation as the φύραμα from which 
none but σκεύη τιμῆς could be formed. But the apostle lets him know, 
that God could make, and had made, the Gentiles also a φύραμα from 
which the like vessels were formed. The same God also makes un- 
believers among the Jews to be σκεύη ὀργῆς, as well as unbelievers 
among the Gentiles. He chooses the objects of his mercy or of his 
justice where he judges best, not arbitrarily, but still for reasons 
which are not revealed to us.— It is singular that Reiche should say 
here: “ The occasion to make use of this comparison, the comparison 
itself, and the particular expressions made use of, permit us to think 
of nothing but the absolute, independent, and irresistible moral pre- . 
paration of men [for destruction ]; and render it impossible to explain 
the words as referring to any other kind of divine action, or to inter- 
pret them in the sense of co-operation.” In other words, he leaves 
Paul here, on the spur of the occasion, to teach fully and directly 
the doctrine of fatalism, and to make but one real agent in the uni- 
verse. Did Paul thus contradict himself? 

(22) Bi δὲ ϑέλων x τ. % It is evident to any one who will atten- 
tively read vers. 22 —24, that the sense remains incomplete, é. e., the 
sentence (orsentences) isunfinished; which form of writingthe Greeks 
called ἀνακόλυθον. But what must be supplied in order to complete 
the sense of these verses, is not sufficiently plain to command the un- 


ROMANS ΙΧ. 22. 437 


animous consent of interpreters. Without delaying to recite different 
opinions, I would merely say, that at the end of vers. 22—24, it seems 
to me plain the question in ver. 20 is to be repeated, viz., σὺ τίς εἶ, ὁ 
ἀνταποκχρινόμενος τῷ Θεῷ; Whether you repeat this question at the 
end of verse 22, or here and also at the end of verse 24, seems to be 
of little importance; for the sense in each case would be substan- 
tially the same. The sum of the sentiment thus explained is: ‘ If 
God, in order that he might exhibit his punitive justice and sove- 
reign power, endures with much long-suffering the wickedness of the 
impenitent and rebellious who are worthy of divine indignation; and 
if he has determined to exhibit his rich grace toward the subjects of 
his mercy whom he has prepared for glory, even toward us, ([ἐπὴ] 
ἡμᾶς) whom he has called (vii. 80), Gentiles as well as Jews; [who 
art thou, that repliest against the divine proceedings in respect to 
all this ? } 

The whole passage is elliptical; and besides this, there is an enal- 
lage of construction at the beginning of verse 23 (in καὶ ἵνα γνωρίσῃ) 
which will require further notice. I proceed from this general view, 
to examine the words. 

Εἰ δέ, of then, or if now ; ἐ. 6.5 since God is the supreme Lord of all 
things, and all his creatures are at his disposal by a sovereign and 
entire right (verses 20, 21); ἐγ now, determining to display his puni- 
tive justice and power, he has endured, &e. Aé ‘ orationi continu- 
ande inservit. Reiche construes δέ as adversative here to verse 14. 
But this makes the connection much more obscure, and it seems to 
be quite unnecessary ; I regard δέ as the sign of an additional illus- 
tration or confirmation of the sentiments just advanced. The con- 
nection of thought seems to be this: ‘If the sovereign Lord of all. 
creatures, who may dispose of them as he pleases, does still endure 
with much long-suffering the wickedness of some of them, and by 
all this determines to display his punitive justice, who can justly 
find fault with his proceedings ἢ 

Θέλων, willing, determining, designing, purposing. It intimates, 
of course, that in ‘enduring with much long-suffering the vessels of 
wrath fitted for destruction, God had a purpose or design of display- 
ing his indignation against sin, 7. ¢., his punitive justice and his power. 
Can it be a reasonable subject of complaint, that he is determined, 
or that he purposes (ϑέλων), to bring good out of evil? 

᾿Ενδείξασθαι τὴν ὀργήν, to manifest or exhibit his indignation or dis- 
pleasure ; m other words to display his punitive justice with respect 


488 ROMANS Ix. 22. 


to the wicked. ’ 027% is often employed to designate the idea of pun- 
ishment, 7. e., the consequences of indignation or anger ; 6. g., Rom. 
1. 18. iv. 15. xiii. 4, 5, al. So Demosthenes: οὐκ ἴσην τὴν ὀργὴν ὁ νόμος 
ἔταξε, x 7. ry the law has not sanctioned equal punishment, &e. 
Reiske, Demosth. p. 528.—Kal γνωρίσαι τὸ δύνατον αὐτοῦ, and to make 
known, publish, declare, his power; comp. δύναμις in verse 17, where 
the power of God has special reference to his miraculous interposi- 
tions in order to punish Pharaoh with the Egyptians, and to deliver 
the oppressed Hebrews. Δύνατον, therefure, in the connection in which 
it here stands, must be viewed as having a special relation to the 
power of making retribution to sinners, the power of punitive justice. 
But to understand and interpret this as done for purposes of revenge 
or vengeance more humano, or for the sake of display such as men 
make through pride and vain glory, would be to make God altogether 
like ourselves, and to represent him in a manner altogether re- 
proachful and unworthy of his perfections. A being who is self- 
existent, immutable, and independent; who cannot even be ima- 
gined as depending in any manner or measure, for his own essential 
happiness or glory, on the creatures whom his power has formed and 
his bounty supports—such a bemg cannot have any purpose of re- 
venge or vain glory to accomplish. Of what possible consequence 
could they be to him? Men are prone to revenge, from malignity 
and because of wounded pride; they are prone to display, because 
of vanity and vain glory, But the ever blessed God, who is love, 
and whose essential glory cannot be affected by the giving or refus- 
ing of homage by any of his creatures, and whose happiness cannot 
in any measure be affected by their opposition to him—such a God 
we cannot at all imagine as exhibiting his punitive justice and power 
for the purposes of revenge or display. He exhibits them only for 
the purposes of benevolence, 7. ¢., for the sake of doing good to the 
subjects of his moral government; who, while they are allured to 
virtue, on the one hand, by all the glories of the upper world, are 
deterred from sin, on the other, by the judgments that are inflicted 
on the disobedient and rebellious. 

- "Eveyne, endured, bore with. ‘The verb φέρω has generally the sense 
of bearing or carrying away, t. e., of bearing accompanied by motion 
in some way or other. But it is also employed in the sense of fear, 
patior, to endure, to suffer, Heb. xiii. 13; or of tolero, sustineo, to 
tolerate, to bear with, as Heb. xii. 20; in the Sept. Gen. xxxvi. 7. 
Num. xi. 14. Deut. 1,12, In this last sense it is clearly used here, 


ROMANS ΙΧ. 22. 439 


as the adjunct ἐν πολλῃ μακροθυμίᾳ shows.—Maxpobuyier, long-suffering, 
longanimitas, t. e., forbearance to punish, delay to enforce the strict 
claims of justice. The apostle seems to have his eye here on the 
case of Pharaoh in particular, who, after he had nine times resisted 
the mandate of Heaven to let the Hebrews go, was still spared and 
preserved in life, although he had long before forfeited all claim to 
forbearance. Still the design of Paul plainly is not to limit the case 
to Pharaoh only. He means to intimate, that God, in like manner, 
now (i. 6.5 at the time when he was writing) displays his long-suffer- 
ing, by Scare to punish those who deserve it. And what was 
true then, in respect to this matter, has been so ever since, and is so 
at the present moment. "Ὁ 

Σχεύη ὀργῆς, vessels of wrath, means vessels in te: to which 
wrath should be displayed, ὁ. 6.) wicked men who deserve punish- 
ment. ‘The reason why the ci θά: here makes use of σκεύη, may be 
found in the verses immediately preceding, where he has spoken of 
VESSELS fitted for honourable and dishonourable use. The language 
literally employed there, is figuratively used here, ¢. e., wicked men 
are called σκεύη ὀργῆς. So in Is. xiii. 5, the Persian army is called 
nm Dy ἊΣ, σκεύη ὀργῆς Κυρίου; comp. Jer. 1.25. But in these ex- 
amples of the: Hebrew Scriptures, by σχεύη ὀργῆς is meant instruments 
of executing the divine displeasure; while in our text the meaning 
15 passive, Viz., persons on whom it ought to be or will be executed. 

Κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν, fitted for destruction; another offendicu- 
lum criticorum: Karneriopiva fitted; how? By whom? The text 
does not say. It simply designates the actual condition of the σκεύη 
ὀργῆς. Now whether they came to be fitted merely by their own 
act, or whether there was some agency on the part of God which 
brought him to be fitted, the text of itself does not here declare. 
The passive participle in such a case may be applied to designate 
what one has done for himself; 6. g., 2 Tim. ii. 21, ἐὰν οὖν rig ἐκκαθάρῃ 
ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τούτων, ἔσται σκεῦος εἰς τιμὴν . . «. εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἡ TOs α- 
σμένον, where the being prepared for every good work is the con- 
sequence of the ἐχκαθάρῃ ἑαυτήν. So in 2 Tim. in. 17, ἐξηρτισμένος 
denotes the being prepared or fitted for every good work, by the 
beneficial influence of the inspired Scriptures. But in our text, 
how can we avoid comparing κατηρτισμένα in ver. 22, with ᾧ προητοίμωσε 
in verse 23? The two verses are counterparts and antithetic ; and 
accordingly we have σκεύη ὀργῆς, to which σχεύη ἐλέους corresponds, 
and so εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἁπᾷ εἰς δόξαν. How can we help concluding, then, 


44 0 ἱ ROMANS Ix. 92, 


that κατηρτισμένα and & προητόιμασε correspond in the way of anti- 
thesis. 

The objections which can be made to such a sense of κατηρτισμένα 
here, viz., a sense which makes it to designate some agency of ar- 
rangement on the part of God, by or in consequence of which, or 
under which, the vessels of wrath become fitted for destruction, are 
in all respects just the same as can be brought against the ἐξήγειρα 
κι σ᾿ Δ. of verse 17, which has been so fully discussed above. The 
question is not, whether God is, ὧν any sense, the author of sin in 
such a way as throws the guilt, or any portion of it, upon him, and 
removes or diminishes the criminality of the sinner. The answer to 
this question is settled and certain from the tenor of the whole Bible, 
as well as from passages direct and express; 6. g., James i. 12. But 
the question is: Whether God, as the Sovereign of the universe, has 
a right to dispose of, and does so dispose of, his creatures who are 
moral and free agents, as to place them in circumstances in which he 
knows they will sin; and, supposing it to be certain that in such a 
case what he foreknows will come to pass, whether it is proper for 
him to exhibit his punitive justice and power? This is precisely 
the attitude of the question in verse 17; and it seems plain that the 
_ apostle has not let go the subject there discussed, but that he here 
presents it again in a somewhat different form, and in the way of 
direct antithesis. If any one is still stumbled at this, I must refer 
him to such texts as 1 Pet. ii. 8. 1 Thess. v. 9, for God hath not 
appointed us to wrath, οὐκ ἔθετο Hus κ᾿ τ. δι, ὃ, 6.. the implication is, 
that he has appointed some others, but not ws, to punishment, &e. 
Jude ver. 4. Prov. xvi. 4. Add to these, such as designate the anti- 
thesis to this meaning, viz., the appointment of some to life eternal; 
as in Acts xiii. 48. 11, 47. Eph. i. 4, 5, 11. 2 Tim. i. 9. Rom. viii. 
29, 30. Eph. 11. 11, al. If now to all these he adds such texts as 
2 Sam. xii. 11. xvi. 10. 1 Kings xxii. 22. Josh. xi. 20. Ps. ev. 25. 
1 Kings xi. 23. 2 Sam. xxiv..1. Ex. vii. 13. ix. 12. x. 1, 20, 27. xi. 
10. xiv. 8. Rom. ix. 17, 18. Deut. ii. 30. Is. lxiii. 17. John xii. 40, 
he can no longer doubt that there is some sense, in which the sacred 
writers do declare that God is concerned with evil. In what sense, 
I have endeavoured to show above, on verse 17. In the same sense, 
and in no other, can we suppose God to be here concerned with 
Jjitting the vessels of wrath for destruction. At all events there can 
be nothing more difficult in this, than there is in all the texts just 
referred to; and especially in Prov. xvi. 4. Jude ver. 4. 1 Pet. 11. 8. 


: 
᾿ 


c 


ROMANS ΙΧ, 23. 441 


1 Thess. ν. 9. It is of no use to explain away the force of one text, 


while so many others meet us which are of the very same tenor; and 
some of which, at least, admit of no explaining away. And evenif 
we give up the Bible itself, so long as we acknowledge a God, who 
is omnipotent and omniscient, we cannot abate, in the least degree, 
from any of the difficulties which such texts make. The great prob- 
lem is: How can entire free agency and accountability consist with 
entire dependence, and with the fact that our Creator has designs to 
accomplish even by our very wickedness? The how is the whole of 
the nodus ; and, as has been repeatedly said, is plainly beyond the 
boundaries of human knowledge. In the meantime, as sin is actually 
in the world, and men are actually accountable,—would it be any 
relief to the difficulties of our question, to suppose God to be so im- 
potent that he cannot bring good out of evil; or so deficient in fore- 
sight and wisdom, as to have made a plan for the world of intelligent 
moral beings, which is radically defective in regard to accomplishing 
the ends of benevolence, and which admits evil that was not foreseen, 
and which cannot be prevented, nor even turned to the accomplish- 
ment, of good? I repeat it, would this be any relief for the difficul- 
ties of our question? I think every candid and sober man will 
answer in the negative. It is better, then, to let the subject rest 
where the Bible has placed it. He who admits a God supreme, omni- 
scient, omnipotent, holy, and benevolent, must admit that this God 
will make sin the occasion of exhibiting his punitive justice and 
power, for the good of the rational universe; and this is enough. 
This is what our text, and what verse 17, plainly implies. 

(23) Καὶ ἵνα γνωρίσῃ, an enallage of construction. Verse 22 begins 
with εἰ θέλων. . . ἐνδείξασθαι. . . καὶ γνωρίσαι, 2. 6.7 with a particle 
followed by the Infinitive mood. The same construction continued 
would here require [εἰ ϑέλων)] γνωρίσαι τὸν πλοῦτον x τ. A But 
instead of this, we have ἵνα γνωρίσῃ. This usage of the Subj. with 
ἵνα, instead of the Inf., is very frequent in the New Test.; see New 
Test. Gramm. § 138.12. In the same manner the apostle might 
have said, εἰ δὲ ϑέλων ὁ Θεὸς, ἵνα ἐνδείξῃ. . . καὶ γνωρίσῃ... ἤνεγκεν x τ΄. A. 
Now as both of these methods of expression amount to the same 
thing, and as both are equally good in respect to grammar, the 
apostle has used the one in verse 22, and the other in verse 23. 
The rules of modern rhetoric would indeed require, that the same 
construction should be carried forward with which the writer had 
commenced the sentence. But it will not be doubted that Paul fre- 


442 ; . ROMANS Ix. 23. 


quently departs from such rules. That ϑέλω may be followed by ἵνα 
with the Subjunctive (like 3éaw... iva γνωρίσῃ), as well as by the 
Infinitive, is clear from such examples as occur in Matt. vii. 12. 
xx. 32 (where ἵνα is implied) ; xxvi. 17 id. xxvii. 17 id. Mark vi. 25. 
ix. 30. x. 51 (ἵνα implied), et sepe. That this may be so with the 
participle of ϑέλω as well as with the verb, appears from 2 Cor. xi. 
12, ϑελόντων.. . . iva... εὑρηθῶσι x. τ᾿ % ὙΠῸ full construction here 
then is, [εὐ δὲ ϑέλων ἵνα γνωρίσῃ x τ. A. 

᾿ Τὸν πλοῦτον τῆς δύξης, his abundant glory, where the first noun stands 
as an adjective ; comp. Heb. Gramm. ὃ 440.5. Σκεύη ἐλέους, ἑ, 6.5) ves- 
eels toward which his mercy was to be displayed; the same as the 
κλητοί of vill. 28, and the antithesis here of σχεύη ὀργῆς---" α προητοίμασε, 
which he had before prepared ; comp. Acts xiii. 48. ii. 47. Eph. i. 4, 
ὅ, 11. 2 Tim. i. 9. Rom. viii. 28, 29, 30. Eph. 111. 11, et al_— 
Δόξαν, glory, t. e., happiness, glory in heaven.—As to πλοῦτος, comp. 
Rom. 11. 4. Eph. i. 7, 18. ii. 7. Col. i. 27. . 

After δόξαν there is plainly something wanting, in order that the 
sentence may correspond with ἤνεγκε x. τ. A. in the verse above. The 
most appropriate verb to be supplied seems to be ἠλέησε, had mercy 
upon, it being suggested by the phrase σχεύη ἐλέους. But supplying 
this, we read thus: “[And if desiring] that he [God] might make 
known his rich grace toward the vessels of mercy which he had be- 
fore prepared for glory, [he showed mercy to] us whom he called, 
ἄς." In this way all runs on smoothly ; and although I have not 
seen this exegesis of the passage in any commentator, I cannot help 
thinking that it is the most easy and obvious one. At all events, 
no one can read verse 23, with its ἤνεγκε x. +. λυ» without feeling that 
some corresponding verb is wanting here. Tholuck has represented 
ἐχάλεσε as being this verb: but the οὖς καί seems to forbid this. And 
besides, ἐκάλεσε does not seem to complete the sense. Understood as 
above explained, the sentiment is plain, and the transition in verse 
24... οὕς καὶ x τ. A, 15 facile. 

The same thing is accomplished in another way, viz., by supposing 
the ellipsis to be completed from the former part of verse 23 thus: 
“ God, desiring that he might make hnown his rich grace toward the 
vessels of mercy which he had before prepared for glory, [ἐγνώρισε viv 
πλοῦτον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ] ἡμᾶς, οὖς καὶ ἐκάλεσε x, τ. A.” This evidently 
comes for substance to the same thing as the exegesis given above; 
and the whole of the ellipsis is in this way supplied from the context 
immediately preceding. That ἡμᾶς is governed by some verbimplied, 


ROMANS ΙΧ, 24, 25, 448 


seems to be plain; for ἐχάλεσε governs οὕς, not ἡμᾶς. Ἡμᾶς, viewed 
in this light, is synonymous with σκεύη ἐλέους, or is in apposition with 
it, and therefore may take the same preposition (é7/) implied before 
it. The phrase connected stands thus (according to the last. proposed 
method of filling up the ellipsis): He made known his rich grace 
tuward or unto us, [ἐπὶ] ἡμᾶς. 

Reiche proposes a very different construction ; viz., to connect xa/ 
ἵνα x. τ. % With the preceding ἤνεγκε; and then he connects the whole 
thus: ‘ Endured with great longanimity, &c., and this in order that 
. (καὶ ἵνα) he might make known the duane. of his glory in respect 
to the righteons, the chosen objects of his mercy, &.’ In defence 
of this he avers that all other. constructions are forced ones, and 
against the grammar; and also that the sense here of long-suffering 
on the part of God toward the wicked, in order to promote the sal- 
vation of the righteous, is analogous to other Scriptures, δὶ g., Rom. 
ii. 4. Acts xvii. 27 seq. But here the long-suffering is for the good 
of the individuals toward whom it is exercised, not for the sake of 
others; so that the cases are not analogous. Nor am I aware of any 
direct analogy in the Scriptures. As to the grammar, anacoluthon 
in Paul is surely no unusual phenomenon, Besides; when Reiche 
proposes to render καὶ ἵνα ἃ8 ---- καὶ τοῦτο, and thus to make the clause 
that follows exegetical or supplementary, is not this as far from 
grommar as the anacoluthon proposed? After all, the main difficulty 
with his exegesis is, that it does not correspond to the sentiment οἵ. 
the preceding verse, where two classes are described, who are widely 
diverse in their character and destiny; and each of these is at God’s 
disposal. The prominency of this sentiment is destroyed by the 
interpretation which he proposes. 

Προητοίμασε here seems to designate the determination in the divine 
mind to prepare the elect; for the calling, as a matter of fact, must 
of course precede the fact of preparation. What God intends to do, 
is here spoken of as done; a very common idiom of the Scriptures. 
(24) οὗς καὶ ἐκάλεσε ἡμᾶς, even us also whom he called, i. e., Gentiles 
as well as Jews. Comp. iii. 29, 30.i. 16. ἢ. 9, 10. iv. 9, 12. 

(25) Ως nal... λέγει, even so, or to the same purpose he saith by 
Hosea. Ἔν ‘Qont may mean in Hosea, 2. 6, in the book of Hosea; 
just as ἐν Δαβίδ (Heb. iv. 7) may mean in the book of David.’ But in 
both cases, it is perhaps more probable that the meaning is by Hosea, 
by David; like the Hebrew ΕἾΤ 7172, 

Kariow...... ἠγαπημένην, I will call him who was not my people, 


444 ROMANS IX. 26, 27. 


my people; and her who was not beloved, beloved; 7. e., the Gentiles, 
who were deemed outcasts from God and were strangers to tiie cove~ 
nant of his promise, will I bring into a covenant relation with me, 
and number among my beloved family; I will make them “sons and 
daughters of the Lord Almighty.” The object of the quotation is 
to support the assertion just made, that the vessels of mercy were 
chosen from the Gentiles as well as the Jews, without any respect of 
persons. In regard to the manner of the quotation, the Hebrew 
runs thus: “1 will love her, who was not beloved; and I will say 
to her who was not my people, My people art thou,” Hos. 11. 23 
(25). The Sept. have literally rendered this in the same order: 
ἀγαπήσω τὴν οὐκ ἀγαπημένην Ke τ. Ae The apostle has changed the or- 
der, and put καλέσω before both phrases instead of saying (with the 
Hebrew and Sept.) ayarjow ... καὶ ἐγώ x +. Of course he has 
quoted ad sensum, not ad hteram. 

(26) Καὶ gora:. . . . ζῶντος, and it shall come to pass, in the place 
where it was said to them: Ye are not my people, there shall they be 
called the sons of the living God; another quotation from Hos. 1. 10. 
(ii. 1), to the same purpose as the preceding one. In both cases the 
original Hebrew has reference to the reception and restoration to 
favour of Israel, who had been rejected on account of their. trans- 
gressions. What was originally said of them, who were thus cast 
away and rejected, on occasion of their being again restored to 
favour, the apostle now applies to the receiving of the Gentiles, who 
had been “strangers to the covenant of promise, and aliens from the 
‘commonwealth of Israel.” It is an accommodation of the words of 
the prophet, so as to express his own views on the present occasion. 
But at the same time it is still,more; for the principle of God’s 
dealing,which is disclosed in the original passages and applied to 
Israel who was rejected and cast off but eventually restored, is the 
same which is involved in the reception to favour of the Gentiles 
who had been out-casts. 

In respect to the quotation, it accords exactly with the original 
Hebrew. The Sept., instead of the ἐχεῦ κληϑήσονται of the apostle, 
has χληϑήσονται καὶ αὐτοί, 

(27) Thus much for the reception of the Gentiles. Next, as to 
the casting off of a great body of the Jews; a point the most diffi- 
cult of all, to be maintained in a satisfactory manner, In order 
however to settle the question on this point, the apostle appeals to 
the declarations of the Hebrew prophets themselves. ᾿Ησαΐας 0... 


ROMANS ΙΧ. 28, 29, 445. 


᾿Ισραῆλ, Isaiah moreover says, in respect to Israel. ΔΈ continuative, 7. 6.» 
it stands before an additional clause designed to illustrate and confirm 
the preceding declaration.—KedZe, exclaims, speaks aloud or openly. 

"Edy, although or if; Hebrew here, 08 3, although.—Qs ἡ ἄμμος 
τῆς ϑαλάσσης, 1. 6.) so great that it cannot be reckoned, exceedingly 
great. Τὸ κατάλειμμα σωθήσεται, a remnant [only] shall be saved. 
Κατάλειμμα here, and the corresponding Heb. "8% means a small 
number, a residue only. And correspondently with this the context 

_ obliges us to interpret the word, both here and in Is. x. 22 seq. from 
which it is quoted. This sense is the only one apposite to the apo- 
stle’s purpose; which is to show that the Hebrew prophets had fore- 
told the same thing which he affirms, viz., that only a remnant of 
Israel is to be saved. In the original Hebrew, the passage has 
probably the same sense as here, 7. ¢., it relates to the times of the 
Messiah ; as may be seen by comparing Is. x. 20,21. The meaning 
of ver. 22 seems to be, that only a small remnant of them [small 
compared with those who had perished] will return to the Lord, so 
as to be received by him. 

(28) Λόγον... γῆς, quoted verbatim from the Sept., Is. x. 22, 23, 
with the exception that γάρ is added by the apostle, to show that he 
continues quoting for the sake of confirmation. For ποιήσει Κύριος, 
the Sept. has Κύριος ποιήσει; and for ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, the Sept. has ἐν τῇ 
οἰκουμένῃ ὅλῃ. The original Hebrew runs somewhat differently : de- 
struction is decreed, it shall overflow in justice ; yea, destruction is 
verily determined on; the Lord Jehovah will execute it in the midst 
of all the land. The Sept. and the apostle both represent the gene- 
ral sense of the Hebrew, but do not follow the words. Λόγον συντελῶν 
means accomplishing his word, t.e., his promise or threat of excision. 
Καὶ συντέμνων, deciding, bringing to an end, executing, viz., his λόγον, as 
before.— Ey δικαιοσύνῃ, carrying all this into execution so as to satisfy 
the demands of justice. 

"Ort λόγον συντετμημένον ποιήσει, for [Jehovah | will execute his word 
decreed, i. 6... his threatening determined on, or decisively made, 
decisively pronounced.— Ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, on the land of Israel. 

The object of the whole is only to show, that God of old threaten- 
ed to destroy great multitudes of the Jews for contumacy ; and that 
it is no strange thing now to say, that great numbers of them will 
perish. 

(29) Kai...’ Hoatas, yea, [it happens] as Isaiuh had before said: 


446 ROMANS IX. 29, 


xe) affirmantis, imo, immo ; for here it is equivalent to καὶ γίνεται. 
The object of this quotation is the same as that of the preceding one, 
viz., to show that it is no new or strange thing, that a part, yea a 
inte portion of Israel should be rejected or cut off on account of 
their apostasy or unbelief. Consequently καὶ was followed, in the 
mind of the writer (and of course it should be in the mind of the 
reader), by γίνεται or ἐγένετο, it happens or has happened.— ΤΙροείρηκε here 
does not mean predicted (as it does in some cases), but had before 
said. ‘The apostle had just cited one passage from Isaiah, viz., x. 22, 
23, and here he adds: ‘To the same purpose had Isaiah spoken in 
a preceding part of his prophecy,’ viz., in 1.9, καὶ καθὼς προείρηκεν 
Ἡσαΐας. 

Κύριος Σαβαώθ, the Lord of Hosis. The Hebrew name MINDS 15 
often added to the title M7 or DN (TON), and designates the 
Supreme Being as Lord of the hosts of heaven, 7. 6., of the angels, &c., 
in heaven. There does not appear to be any good reason for the 
opinion of Von Célln, which Tholuck adopts, that this title was first 
given to Jehovah because he was the mighty defender (1133) of Israel ; 
and afterwards because he was considered as the Lord of the stars ; 
which are called the host of heaven. The Lord of the heavenly 
hosts, 7. e., the angels, ΠΊΝΩΝ 37), is more simple: and so Gesenius 
explains it in his lexicon; comp. Ps. ἴχνη, 17, where the “ chariots 
of God are said to be twenty thousand, even thousands of angels,” 
and “the Lord to be among them;” also Deut. xxxiti. 2, where he 
is said to come with myriads of his holy ones (#3? M231); comp. 
2 K. vi. 16, 17. Dan. vii. 10, “thousand of thousands ministered unto 
him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.” Tadd 
only that the appellation Mi82¥ does not occur in the Pentateuch, 
nor in the book of Judges, and that it is most frequent in Isaiah, Jere- 
miah, Zechariah, and Malachi. The- apostle appears to have re- 
tained the Hebrew word untranslated, because it is so retained in 
the Septuagint version of Is. i. 9, which he here quotes. 

Σπέρμα here corresponds to the Hebrew MW, the literal meaning 
of which is not seed, but remnant, ἐς, e., that which is left or saved 
after a general overthrow or ‘cat cubeidoat In Deut. iii. 3 and Is. i, 
9, the Septuagint has σπέρμα for MW. Σπέρμα often means posteré, 
posterity, those who come after one. But I apprehend the ground of 
the usage in this case by the Seventy, 1 is, that σπέρμα (whut is sown, 
seed) denotes what remains of grain, after the consumption for the 


ROMANS Ix. 29. 447 


year, until seed-time comes, which is then sown; so that, considered 
in this light, σπέρμα is equivalent to residuum, which is the sense of 
it here. 

Ὡς Γόμοῤῥα ἂν ὡμοιώθημεν, instead of Τομόῤῥῳ ἂν ὡμοιώθημεν, 1. 6.7 Γομυόῤῥο i 
the Dativeafter ὡμοιώθημεν. The Greekscould employ either construc- 
tion; at least the Seventy have doneso; see in Hos. iv. 6. Ezek. xxxii. 
2, in which latter case both constructions are employed in the same 
sentence; λέοντι ἐθνῶν ὡμοιώθης ob, καὶ ὡς δράκων ὁ ἐν τῇ Judrdoon. 
The Hebrew is 2 ™- To be like Gomorrha, is to be utterly 
destroyed as this city was. The sentiment therefore is: ‘ Isaiah 
said concerning the Jews, that only a small remnant should be 
rescued from utter destruction.’ 

It is true, that in Is. i. 9 the passage does not respect the spiritual 
but the temporal punishment of the Jews. But the ground of the 
apostle’s reasoning here is analogy. His object is, as it all along 
through the chapter has been, to illustrate a principle of action. 
What God did at one time and in one ‘respect, he may do at an- 
other time and in a different respect, provided the PRINCIPLE con- 
cerned shall be the same. And surely it is no more against his 
benevolence or his justice, to punish spiritually for transgressions of 
a spiritual nature, 7. 6.5 for continued impenitence and unbelief, than 
it is to punish temporally for sins against himself. His promises to 
Abraham and his seed, i. ¢., his literal descendants, are only and 
always conditional, either as to temporal or spiritual blessings. Of 
course the same principle of action applies to both, when God 
punishes. It is on this ground, then, that the apostle adduces in- 
stances of threatening temporal evil, in order to illustrate and confirm 
spiritual threats. 

Overlooking this obvious principle of analogical reasoning, many 
commentators on Rom. ix. have very strenuously maintained, that 
all which is there said pertains only to the present world and to 
things of a merely temporal nature, or at most, only to the external 
privileges of religion; and all this, because the instances here pro- 
duced are mostly of such a kind. But let any one look back first 
on chap. vill. 28—39, which most plainly gives rise to the whole 
discussion in chap. ix.; then contemplate the resumption of this 
theme in chap. ix. 6; and above all, let him view the summing up 
of the main object in chap. ix. 18—23, and then glance forward to 
verses 30—33 ; and it does seem to me, unless he has made up his 
mind to an ἃ priori way before he comes to the study of the text, 


448 ROMANS Ix. 29. 


that he cannot entertain any doubt what the object of the writer is. 
That extravagant positions have been advanced, on the ground of 
Rom. ix., which are revolting to piety and to right views of God 
and of human liberty, [ should be among the last to deny. How 
easy it is for ardent polemics, when engaged in controversy and 
hardly pushed by subtle and able antagonists, to venture on extra- 
vagant positions—positions which depend on an exegesis ad literam 
and not upon one ad sensum—need not be shown, when the melan- 
choly examples of such facts stand out so boldly in relief. But why 
all this should be charged to Paul, and why those who differ in sen- 
timent from speculative critics of this class, should go so far over in 
the opposite direction as to lose all sight of the apostle’s object and 
aim, and make him discuss things of ἃ merely ¢emporal nature, when 
he begins, continues, and ends with a spiritual theme ;—why all this 
is so frequently done, should be well looked to by those who are 
engaged in doing it. They may be very sincere in their opinions; 
and this I would by no means call in question. But aman may be 
sincerely wrong, as well as sincerely right; and when he is so 
through prejudice, through the heat of dispute, through reliance on 
mere human authority, through want of diligence and candour in 
studying the word of God, and judging with respect to its meaning; 
then it is but just, that his divine Lord and Master should consider 
him as accountable for his wrong judgment, and for the mischief 
which he does to others by it. If iam myself in the very predica- 
ment which I am here describing, may God in mercy open my eyes 
to see the truth as it in reality is, that I may not wander and perish 
myself, nor be the occasion that others should do the same ! 
Reiche, in answering the question, whether the apostle has taught 
in this chapter what we are to receive as a rule of faith P comes to 
the conclusion that Paul has contradicted what he has elsewhere 
maintained, in regard to human Jiberty and accountability; and, 
consequently, that we are to consider him as here employing a kind 
of argumentum ad hominem merely, or as assailing his opposers γυμ- 
γαστικῶς, t. xy intending to hit them where he can, if he can but hit 
and disable them. What kind of reverence we can cherish for Paul, 
-when we have come to a conclusion like this, it is not difficult to 


imagine. 


ἸΟΜΑΝΒ IX. 30, 31. 449 


CHAP. IX. 30—33. 


HAvine thus completed the illustration and confirmation of his views respecting the sovereign 
dispensations of God, as to his mercy and his justice, the apostle now repeats in substance a 
leading sentiment of his epistle, viz., that justification being wholly gratuitous, and by faith in 
Christ, it is extended to all who reczive it as such, and so brings the Gentiles within its reach: 
while the Jews, rejecting this method of salvation, have failed to obtain justification ; for they 

_have stumbled at the doctrine of the cross, and been unable to find acceptance with God on the 
ground of merit or by deeds of law. As no doctrine of the gospel was more repulsive to the 
Jews, than the truth that preference would be given to believing Gentiles over them, or at least 
a full admission to the same privileges~in all respects; so Paul takes occasion frequently and 
solemnly to impress this.important principle upon them, 


(30) Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; a preface or transition to a summary of what 
he had been inculeating in the preceding context. It is as muchas 
to say: ‘ How then may all that has been said on the point under 
consideration be summed up? What in brief is the whole matter? 
The answer follows : 

Ὅτι... ἐκ πίστεως, that the Gentiles who did not seek after justi- 
fication, have obtuined justification, and that justification which is by 
faith. That is, one principal thing which I have maintained (when 
I have averred that the Gentiles have become the children of Abra- 
ham by faith, and are received in the place of the unbelieving Jews), 
is that those who did not seek after justification, 1. e., who were once 
estranged from God and his law, were enemies to all which is good, 
and utterly regardless of spiritual blessings—these have now obtained 
justi‘cation by faith, ὦ, 6.7 they are admitted by the mercy of God, 
withoat any merit on their part, to participate in the blessings of the 
gospel, even in the justification which Christ has procured. διώκω 
is frequetly used, even in the classic authors, in a sense like ζητεῖ; 
and so in Mebrew 7) for ΡΞ, Reiche supposes that ὅτι is here de- 
signated to continue the question; ἃ, 6.,) [Shall we say] that, &c.? 
But the διατί of verse 32 argues against this interpretation. 

(31) "logan... . οὐκ ἔφθασε, but Israel, who sought for a law of 


justification, have not attained to a law of justification. ‘That is, Is- 
rael, who, confiding in their own merit and good works, betook them- 
selves for justification to their supposed complete obedience to the 
divine law, or betook themselves to the law as a means of justifica- 
tion, have not found or attained to such a law as would justify them. 


In other words : ‘The Jews, who trusted in their obedience and merit 
28 


ἀδὸ ROMANS ΙΧ, 32, 33. 


as the ground of their acceptance with God, have failed in obtaining 
acceptance or justification in this way.’ The reason or ground of this 
is fully stated in Rom. i—iii. The law demands perfect obedience 
to all its precepts, which no one ever did or ever will exhibit; and, 
consequently, no one can obtain acceptance on the ground of legal 
obedience, or by works of law. The apostle proceeds briefly to state 
the ground of what he had just asserted. 

(92) Διατί; ὅτι... γόμου" Why? because [they sought] not by 
faith, but by works of law ; ἃ, e., Israel did not seek for justification 
in a gratuitous way, but by legal, ὁ. e., meritorious obedience. That 
ἐκ πίστεως, by faith, necessarily involved, in the mind of the writer, 
the idea of gratuitous justification, is certain from Rom. iv. 4, 5, and 
especially iv. 16. From a comparison of iii. 20—28, it is equally 
clear, that ἐξ ἔργων νόμου means meritorious obedience, i. ¢., a complete 
obedience to every precept of the law, in sucha way that the reward 
consequent on perfect obedience can be claimed. Such a reward, 
the apostle maintains, it is now impossible for any one of the human 
race to obtain, “ because all have sinned and come short of the glory 
of God.” Now as the Jews were self-righteous and proud, they of 
course lacked that humility and sense of ill-desert which the gospel 
demands, and without which its salvation is not to be had. This 
pride and self-righteousness led them to reject the Saviour of lost 
sinners, and to refuse all trust or confidence in him. Here it was 
that they stumbled and fell, yea even to their own perdition; as the 
apostle goes on to say: 

Προσέχοψαν γὰρ. . . γέγραπται, for they stumbled on the stone of 
stumbling, as it is written. Τάρ here is causal, 7. e., standing before 
a clause which assigns the cause or reason why Israel had not ob- 
tained δικαιοσύνη. Yet A., B., D., E., F., G.; Syr. utr. Copt., 
Arm., Vulg., Ital.; Cyr., Chrys., Ruf., Aug., Ambrosiast., Pel., omit 
the γάρ; and it is probably spurious. The connection is more facile 
without it. But supposing it to be genuine, we may thus explain the 
text; to the question, διατί; why? viz., Why did not Israel obtain 
justification? the apostle answers, (1) ‘ Because they sought it by 
legal obedience and not by faith’ (2) As subordinate to this he 
says: ‘ They did not exercise faith, because they were offended with 
the Messiah as he appeared among them; they were stumbled at his 
character and claims.’ 

(33) ᾿Ιδοὺ . . . καταισχυνθδήσεται, behold I lay in Zion a stone of 
stumbling and a rock of offence; but every one who believeth on him 


LOMANS IX. 32. Ad1 


shall not be ashamed. <A peculiar quotation, made up of Is. xxviii. 
16, and viii. 14. The former passage runs thus: ‘‘ Behold, I have 
laid in Zion a stone, a corner stone, tried, precious, a firm founda- 
tion ; he who confides in it shall not be afraid.”—The latter passage 
thus: ‘ And he shall be for a refuge, and for a stone of stumbling 
and a rock of offence, to both houses of Israel.” It appears, then, 
that the stone of stumbling and rock of offence, in Rom. ix. 33, 
comes from Is. viii. 14, while the rest of the verse is taken from 
Is. xxviii. 16 | 
~ ΤῈ is a very common practice among the Jewish Rabbing, in citing 
the Scriptures, to mix passages together that are of the same tenor; 
and I may add, this is done by writers every day, without any con- 
sciousness of doing violence*to the Scriptures, or of using an improper 
liberty ; see Surenhusius’ Βίβλος Καταλλάγης, Par. V. p. 43. But 
however this may be, the fact that the apostle has done so, seems to 
be plain. The reader will observe, that in Is. xxviii. 16 the predi- 
cates of the stone that was laid in Zion are, that it is tried, precious, 
a firm foundation; but one of the predicates in Is. viii. 14 is, that it 
is a stone of stumbling, or a rock of offence. ‘This is just what would 
coincide with the design of the apostle in the passage before us. He 
is describing the unbelief of the Jews, their rejection of the Messiah. 
Of course the stone of stumbling is best adapted to the description of 
their case. | 
It would seem to be clear, from the manner in which Paul cites 
both of these passages, that he applied them both to the Messiah; or 
at least that they were, in his view, capable of such an application 
in the way of analogy. Tholuck and many others understand them 
intheformer way. The Chaldee Targum, on Is. xxviii. 16, translates 
thus: “ See, I place in Zion a King, a mighty and a powerful King;” 
meaning the Messiah. Αἶβο the Babylonish Talmud (Tract. Sanhe- 
drin. fol. 38. 1), the book of Zohar, and Jarchi. Kimchi also speaks 
of such an interpretation being given. In the New Testament, if 
the reader will compare Matt. xxi. 42, 44. Luke xx. 17, 18, and 
1 Pet. it, 5—7, he will find that Ps. exviii. 22 (“the stone which 
the builders refused is become the headstone of the corner”), and Is, 
vill. 14 are joined together, on account of their resemblance and their 
reference to the same object. Peter has not only joined these two 
passages, but added a third, viz., Is. xxviii. 16, and referred them ali 
to the Messiah. This casts light, therefore, on the intermingling of 
texts by Paul, in the passage under consideration. 


452 ROMANS ΙΧ. 33. 


In regard to the text in Is. viii. 14, it seems evident from Luke ii. 
34, that the pious part of the Jews, to say the least, were accustomed 
to give it a Messianic interpretation; for thus does the aged Simeon, 
when‘he takes the child Jesus in his arms, and says: “ This child is 
set for the fall and rise of many in Israel, a sign that shall be spoken 
against.” So the Gemara (Tract. Sanhedrin) also interprets Is. viii. 
14, of the Messiah. That the Messiah would be rejected by the 
Jews, is plainly enough predicated (as their own ancient Rabbies 
acknowledge), in Ps. xxii. Is. 11, Zech. xi. xii., &c. So the Bere- 
shith Rabba (a mystical commentary on Genesis, written about 
A.D. 300, by Rabbi Bar Nachmani), says: “ One will sing no song, 
until the Messiah shall be treated with scorn; as it is written” [in 
Ps. Ixxxix. 52]. 

The objection against the Messianic interpretation of Is. viii. 14. 
xxviii. 16, viz., that ‘ circumstances then present are referred to, the 
threatening of present punishment uttered, and excitement to present 
hopes and confidence then proffered, cannot weigh much against 
such an interpretation. The prospect of the future was then held 
out by the prophet to the wicked as a matter of dread ; to the pious, 
asa matter of hopeand joy. Let us see, now, how this matter stood. 
The Jews looked forward to a great deliverer, to a period of great 
prosperity and glory in the days of their Messiah. What says the 
prophet? He says: ‘The days of the Messiah himself shall bring 
no liberation of the wicked from evil; they shall be consolatory only 
to the good; for even the Messiah himself will be only a stone of 
stumbling and a rock of offence to the wicked.’ This is both pre- 
diction and preaching. It threatens and consoles, while it discloses 
what is yet future. 

Who can venture to say, now, that the prophet could not, or did not, 
entertain such views as these, and speakin such amanner? After the 
interpretation of Christ himself and of his apostles, in such a way asto 
support this view, we may venture to embrace it without any hazard. 

Οὐ χαταισχυνθήσεται, in the Hebrew ὉΠ >. Panl seems to have 
read (and so the Seventy also), &2 > or Vin. NP The present 
Hebrew text, ὉΠ) N?, means literally he shall not make haste; but 
a secondary and derived sense of the same verb, is to be afraid, to he 
agitated with fear so as to betake one’s self to flight. In this latter 
sense, it comes in substance to the same meaning which κατὰισχυνθή. 
σεται! expresses, viz., that of disappointed expectation and hope, failure 
of obtaining security and happiness. “ Non refert verbum, sed res.” 


ROMANS χ. 1, 2. ᾿ 453 


CHAP, X. 1—21. 


Uaving thus shown that the casting off of Israel cannot be alleged as a wrong on the part of 
their Sovereign Lord and Ruler, and that the Scriptures contain many examples of the like 
dealing with individuals, as well as predictions respecting the rejection of the Jews ; having also 
declared very explicitly that this rejection is because of their unbelief in respect to the Messiah, 
and their confidence in their own merits; the apostle now proceeds again to testify (as he has 
done in chap. ix. 1—5) his strong affection for his kinsmen after the flesh, and his ardent desires 
and prayers for their salvation. Nothing can be more appropriate than the expression of so 
much kind and deeply interested feeling, on his part, for the Jews, whom he is obliged to de- 
nounce and threaten because of their character and conduct. It serves to show, that he does 
not do this in the spirit of revenge, or because he loves denunciation ; but that he does it with a 
sorrowful heart and eyes full of tears, that his bowels yearn over them, and that he retains for 
them all the affection which he once had when acting with them, yea, even more, and that too 
of a higher and better nature. 

He had just said, that Israel was διώκων νόμον δικαιοσύνης. .. Kai οὐκ ἔφθασε. Here he resumes 
the theme, and explains himself more at large. He states the reason why they did not attain 
justification, verses 2, 3, and goes on to show, that Moses himself confirms the same ideas which 
he had disclosed to them relatiye to faith and works, verses 4-8. The sentiment that belief in 
Christ is necessary for all, both Jew and Greek, is still further confirmed by verses 9—12. 

The aposile next presents the Jew as objecting thus: ‘If we allow what you say as to the neces- 
sity of faith or belief in Christ, yet how are we to be blamed for rejecting him, in case he has 
never been preached or declared to us?” verses 13—15. 

To this the apostle answers, (1) That not all who have heard the gospel, believe it; as Isaiah 
himself declares, verses 16, 17. (2) But further; the objection cannot be truly made, that the 
Jews have not heard the gospel, at least enjoyed the opportuuity of hearing it; for one may ap- 
ply to them, in this respect, the words of Ps. xix. 4; or the words of Moses, in Deut. xxxii. 21; 
or of Isaiah, in Ixy. 1,2; so that they are left without any just apology for their unbelief, verses 
18—21. 


(1) Ἢ μὲ» εὐδοκία τῆς ἐμῆς καρδίας, the benevolent or kind desire of 
my heart; 2. e., his sincere and hearty wish (as we say) is, &c.— 
Εἰς σωτηρίαν, for salvation, t. 6., for their salvation. Literally my 
prayer to God for them |is| unto or in respect to salvation. But εἰς 
is frequently used in the New Testament in the same sense as ὃ in 
Hebrew; 6. g., Rom. xvi. 6, εἰς ἡμᾶς, for us; 1 Cor. viii. 6, εἰς αὐτόν, 
for him, t. 6.7 for his honour and glory; 2 Cor. viii. 6, εἰς ὑμᾶς, for 
your advantage; and so often. The phrase ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν [ἐστὶν] εἰς 
σωτηρίαν 15 altogether equivalent, then, to ἵνα σωθῶσι or ὑπὲρ τῆς σωτῆρίας 
αὐτῶν. The reading ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν which is sanctioned by A., B., D., F., 
G., is now generally admitted in critical editions, instead of the Re- 
ceptus ὑπὲρ τοῦ ᾿Ισραήῆλ. The sense is the same. The same MSS. 

, omit ἡ before σρός. 
(2) Magrugd γὰρ αὐτοῖς, for I bear them witness. Τάρ tllustrantis, 


454 ROMANS xX. 3. 


i. 6.5) standing before a clause that suggests some consideration which 
has a bearing on the preceding declaration. The apostle means to 
say, that he retains a strong affection for the Jews, and prays sin- 
cerely and ardently for their salvation; and specially so, as they 
have much feeling and zeal in respect to the subject of religion. 
Αὐτοῖς is the Dative after μαρτυρῶ: for this verb commonly takes 
the Dative of the person or thing for whom or which testimony is 
given. ν ; 

τι ζῆλον Θεοῦ ἐχουσι, that they have a zeal for God; Θεοῦ being the 
Genitive of the object to which ζῆλον stands related. So in John ii. 
17, ὁ Ci?.05 τοῦ οἴκου σιυ, zeal for the honour of thine house; comp. Ps. 
Ixix. 10 (9), T2822, also Acts xxii. 3, and John xvi. 2; comp. 
Gal. i. 14. Acts xxi. 206. The apostle means to say, that the Jews 
had much zeal for objects of a religious nature, for such objects as 
had a relation to God; or in other words, that they possessed strong 
feelings and sympathies of a religious nature. And with this repre- 
sentation all accounts of them agree. Philo, Josephus, and the 
various writers of the New Testament, by the facts which they dis- 
close, most abundantly confirm the correctness of this declaration. 

᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν, but not according to knowledge; %. e., not an 
intelligent, discerning, enlightened zeal; not a zeal regulated by a 
proper understanding of what was really religious truth. ‘They per- 
secuted Christians, for example, unto death, and yet thought them- 
selves to be doing service for God, λατρείαν Θεῷ, John xvi. 2. There 
may be zeal without knowledge, which is superstitious, persecuting, 
hostile to the peace and happiness of the community; and there may 
be knowledge without zeal, which is cold, sceptical, unfeeling, and 
which devils may possess as well as men. An actual union of both 
is accomplished only by sincere piety; and a high degree of this 
union, only by ardent piety. 

(3) ᾿Αγνοοῦντες γὰρ. . . δικαιοσύνην, for being ignorant of that justi- 
fication which is of God. Θεοῦ here is Gen. auctoris, t. e., a Geni- 
tive designating the author of that which the preceding noun signifies, 
Τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην is that method of justification, viz., gratuitous 
or by faith, which God has established, appointed, or revealed in the 
gospel. It stands opposed, here, to τὴν ἰδίαν δικαιοσύνην, 2. 6.7 justifica- 
tion on the ground of merit or by the works of law. Γάρ causal, i. e., 
standing before a clause which gives the reason or ground of the as- 
sertion contained in ἀλλ᾽ οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν, and consequently γάρ may be 
rendered 707, 


ROMANS xX. 4. 455 


The apostle does not mean by ἀγνοοῦντες, to imply that the Jews) 


ignorant, of the gospel method of justification. 

Καὶ τὴν ἰδίαν. .. στῆσαι, and seeking to establish their own 2,8: 
tification. Στῆσαι means here to render valid, to make good one’s 
claims. The Jews sought for and expected justification by their own 
~ merit, 7. ¢., by obedience to their laws, specially the ceremonial ones. 
How defective their views were, on the subject of what is required 
by the law of God, particularly in a spiritual respect, 1s manifest from 
the whole of the New Testament, but specially so from the declara- 
tions of the Saviour in his Sermon on the Mount, Matt. v. seq. 
That ypetefication. in the way of merit is impossible, the apostle had 

© Οὐκ ὑπετάγησαν, es ie “ἢ submitted themselves ; in which ren 
fate we give to the second Aor. of the Pass. voice, the reflewive 
sense of the Middle voice. So the Aorists of the Passive are fre- 
quently used; see Buttm. Gr. Gramm. ὃ 123. 2; N. Test. Gramm. ὃ 
61.4. But if we render οὐχ ὑπετάγησαν passively, they have not been 
subjected, the sense will be substantially the same. 

Sentiment of the verse: ‘ Having no correct views of justification 
by grace, and being earnestly desirous of justification on the ground 
of their own merit, ‘they reject the justification which God has prof- 
fered to them in the gospel. 

(4) Τέλος γὰρ νόμου Χριστός, for Christ is the end of the law; i.e, 
believing in Christ, receiving him by faith and thus attaining to 
δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, accomplishes the end or olject of what the law would 
accomplish, viz., which perfect obedience to the law would accom- 
plish. In this simple way, and consonant with the context, I would 
interpret this long agitated and much controverted text. That τέλος 
has often the same meaning or substantially the same which is here 
given to it, may be abundantly shown. It is frequently used to de- 
note exitus rei, the event, end, ultimate object or design of a thing ; 
6. g.. Matt. xxvi. 58, ἰδεῖν τέ τέλος, to see the event, final end, Rom. vi. 
21, τὸ τέλος, the end or final event of those things, is death; 2 Cor. 
xi. 15, ὧν τὸ τέλος, whose end, final state or condition, 2. e, reward, 
‘ shall be according to their works; Phil. iii. 19, ὧν τὸ τέλος, whose end 
or final state, shall be destruction ; 1 Tim. 1. 5, τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγ- 


fort 


had enjoyed no opportunity to become acquainted with the δικαιοσύνην, 7 
Θεοῦ: for this would contradict what he says in the sequel, verse 18,, 
seq. He means only to say, that whatever their opportunities of | 
knowledge had been, they were in fact still ignorant, and criminally | 


.““.--ὕ.β...ϑ 


>. 
(f 


“a τι ‘it 


. ς 


450 ROMANS X. 4. 


yeriac, now the ultimate end, object, design, of the commandment, 
&e.; Heb. vi. 8, ἧς τὸ τέλος εἰς καῦσιν, whose end, or final reward is 
burning. See also James v. 11. 1 Pet. i. 5, τὸ τέλος, the end or event 
of your faith, is the salvation of your souls; iv. 17. So in other 
Greek writings ; 6. Guy τὸ τέλος TOU πράγματος εἰς κακίαν ἄγει, Test. XII. 
Patriarch. p. 689; τὸ τούτου τέλος ἐν Θεῷ ἦν, the end or event of this 
matter was with the Divinity, Demosth. 292.22. So in the phrases, 


Φ , ’ 5 ’ 3 ~ 4 , 
TEAS λαμβάνειν, παρέρχεσθαι εἰς TEAOS, EX TOU τέλους γνωρισθέντα, Ms Toc de 


From all this there remains no good reason to doubt, that τέλος 
may mean here ewxitus, the end, final object, the result; t. e., the end 
which the law was intended to accomplish or bring about, has been 
brought about or accomplished by Christ. Now the end of the law, 
was the justification of men, 2. 6.7 their advancement to happiness and 
glory in a future world.’ So the apostle himself states in the sequel : 
“The man that doeth these things shall live by them.” But inas- 
much as μι men have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” 
so “no flesh can be justified by the deeds of the law ;” in other words, — 
legal justification on the ground of merit is now impossible. But 
what the law cannot accomplish, Christ does accomplish ; for through 
him the justification of sinners is brought about, which would other- 
wise be impossible. Christ then is the end of the law, t. e., he accom- 
plishes or brings about that which the law was designed to accom- 
plish—the acceptance of men with God, and their admission to the 
happiness of the future world. 

‘That ver. 4 is only epexegetical of the last clause of the preceding 
verse, seems to me quite plain; and the γάρ intimatesthis. Christ 
then is asserted, in ver. 4, to be the end of the law, ὃ. e., to answer 
the same end which the law perfectly obeyed would answer, as to 
justification. 

But τέλος has been very differently construed ; viz., (2) As mean- 
ing end in the sense of ending or completion. In this case νόμος 
is interpreted as meaning the ceremonial law ; so that the sentiment 
is: ‘Christ has, by his coming, made an end of the ceremonial law.’ 
But it is a sufficient objection to this interpretation, that it is wholly 
irrelevant to the subject now under discussion; which is, whether 
justification is by merit, as the Jews believed, or by grace. This 
interpretation, however, has been defended by Augustine, Gregory 
Thaumat., Schlichting, Le Clerc, Limborch, and some others. 

(b) Christ is the τελείωσις or πλήρωμα of the Jewish law, ἡ, 6.. Christ 
perfectly fulfilled or obeyed it. But this explanation, although 


¢ 


ROMANS x. 5. 457 


defended by Origen, Pelagius, Ambrose, Melancthon, Vatablus, Cal- 
vin, &c., fails in being able to make out a usus loquendi in favour of 
such a sense of the word τέλος. And moreover; what is it to the 
purpose of the apostle? To say that Christ obeyed the whole law, 
ritual, or moral, or both, is saying what indeed is true; but then it 
has no direct or visible bearing upon the subject immediately before 
the mind of the writer. There are two supposable ways of justifi- 
cation, one wrong way and one right one; this it is his object to 
show. Now the Jews, having chosen the wrong one, viz. their own 
works of law, ὦ. ¢., their own merits, have of course missed the right 
one, viz. that by faith in Christ. 

(ὁ) Chrysostom, Theodoret, Beza, Bucer, S. Schmidt, Bengel, 
Turretin, Heumann, Tholuck, &c., understand +20¢ in the sense of 
end, design, final object. Tholuck explains it thus: viz., that the 
Jaw teaches us our sinfulness and our need of a Saviour, and this was 
what it was designed to accomplish; and thus it leads us in the end 
to Christ, or to Christ as its final end. He finds an exact parallel in 
Gal. i. 24: “the law is our παιδαγωγός to bring us to Christ.” But 
why we should give the passage this turn here, I cannot see; for 
the writer has expressly told us in what respect he means that Christ 
was the end of the law, viz. εἰς δικαιοσύνην. And in accordance with 
this, Flatt has expounded the passage thus: Christ is the τέλος 
νόμου in respect to δικαιοσύνη ; t.¢., he has brought it about, that we 
should not be judged after the strictness of the law. He has re- 
moved the sentence of condemnation from all those who receive the 
gospel.’— Well and truly. 

Eig... . πιστεύοντι, in respect to the justification of every believer. 
This desigaates, as I have before observed, the very respect in which 
Christ was τέλος νόμου. He is so to every believer ; but not so to 
others, i.¢., not so while they remain unbelievers, although he is 
proffered to them as mighty and willing to save all who will come 
unto God through him. Tay) x. τ. 4. in the Dative, as the person 
for whom. x 

(5) Μωυσῆς γάρ κ. τ. A. Here is γάρ tllustrantis again ; for the 
whole of the quotations which follow, are plainly designed to illus- 
trate the two different methods of justification which the apostle 
had just brought mto view.— Ledge, describeth, delineateth; often 
used in such a sense.——Tyy δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου, legal justifi 
cation, i. 6.7 meritorious justification, one which a man may claim 
as the proper reward of his own good deeds or obedience. The 


458 ROMANS x. 6. 


apostle makes this appeal to Moses, both to confirm and illustrate his 
own declarations and to show also that he is inculcating no new 
doctrine. 

"Orr... ἐν αὐτοῖς, that the man who doeth these things, shall 
live by them. * Orr is prefixed here to a quotation, as usual, and has 
the sense of our viz., namely, or as follows. The Greek word itself, 
seems in reality to be the neuter of ὅστις, brim) τῇ, 1. 6.) this thing, 
videlicet. 

Ποιήσας αὐτά, viz., the thing spoken of in the preceding context. 
The quotation 18 re Lev. xviii. 5, which has a reference to pre- 
ceeding ordinances and statutes recorded in Leviticus. Mow is very 
frequently employed in the sense of performing, obeying a statute, 
ordinance, &e., or in obeying the will of another.—Zjoeras ἐν αὐτοῖς, 
he shall be rendered happy by them, i. 6.90 by cbedience to such sta- 
tutes, &c. Obedience, 2. 6.0. entire obedience, shall render him happy, 
shall entitle him to the rewards that are proffered to the obedient. 
That the Jews understood something more than happiness in the 
present life, by the ") (ζήσεται) in Lev. xviii. 5, seems probable from 
the version of Onkelos: “ He shall live in eternal life by them.” 
So the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan: “ He shall live in eternal life, 
and have a part with the righteous.” : 

(6) “Ἢ δὲ. . . Abyss, but justefication by fuith speaketh thus. Δέ 
but, here in distinction from or in opposition to the preceding decla- 
ration. Δυκαιοσύνην is here personified. ‘The sense is the same as to — 
say : ‘One who preaches justification. by faith, might say, &e.’ 

Mj)... . σου, say not in thine heart, 2. e., διαλθτο thyself. To say 
within one’s self, is to think, imagine, suppose. So the Greek gnu 
is sometimes used for internal saying, 7.e., thinking. ’Ev τῇ καρδίᾳ σου, 
7292, where 3 (heart) is used like 4425] piticy for self’: and so very 
often in the Hebrew language. 

Tis... οὐρανόν ; who shall ascend to heaven? &e. The whole 
appeal and method of reasoning is in an analogical way. Moses, 
near the close of his life,in a general exhortation to obedience which 
he addressed to the Hebrew nation, assigns as one reason why they 
should obey, that the statutes of the Lord which he had given them 
were plain and intelligible; they “were not hidden from them, neither 
were they afar off,’ Deut. xxx. 11. In order to enforee this last 
thought the more effectually, he dwells upon it and illustrates it in 
several ways. ‘The commandment,” says he, “is not in heaven, 
that thoushouldest say: Who shall go up for us to heaven and bring 


ROMANS X. 6. A59 


it to us, that we may hear itand doit. Neither is it beyond the sea, 
that thou shouldest say: Who shall go over the sea for us and bring 
it to us, that we may hear and do it?” That is: ‘The law which 


you are required to obey, is plain and intelligible; it is accessible to 


all men, it is not difficult to be procured or understood. It needs no 
messenger to ascend the skies and bring it down from heaven; for it 
is already revealed. We need not send abroad for it, nor peti: af- 
ter it in distant and inaccessible lands that lie beyond the ocean.’ In 


_other words: ‘It is plain and easy of access.’ Nay one may say: 
“The word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, 


that thou mayest do it.” Deut. xxx. 14. That is: ‘ The command- 
iment is in language which thou dost speak, and is such as thou canst 
comprehend with thine understanding ; which last circumstance is 
only repeating or amplifying, in another form, the idea that had 
preceded. 

The whole may be summed up in one word, omitting all figurative 
expression ; viz., the commandment ts plain and accessible. You can 
have, therefore, no excuse for neglecting it. 

So in the case before us. Justification by faith in Christ is a 
plain and intelligible doctrine. It is not shut up in mysterious 
language, nor concealed from the eyes of all but the initiated, like 
the heathen mysteries. It is like what Moses says of the statutes 
which he gave to Israel, plain, intelligible, accessible. It is not in 
the books of countries which lie beyond the impassable ocean; not 
in the mysterious book of God in heaven, and yet undisclosed; not 
in the world beneath, which no one can penetrate and return to dis- 
close its secrets. It is brought before the mind and heart of every 
man; and thus he is without excuse for unbelief. 

Such is the general nature and object of these quotations, and 
such the method of reasoning in respect to them. It is apparent, 
therefore, that ne quid nimis is very applicable here, in regard to 
commentary on the words which are employed. It is the general 
nature of the imagery, in the main, which is significant to the pur- 
pose of the writer. Paul means simply to affirm, that if Moses could 
truly say that his law was intelligible and accessible, the doctrine of 
justification by faith in Christ is even still more so. 

Τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι. . . . καταγάγειν, that is, to bring down Christ. The 
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι here designates the reference which the apostle designs to 
make of the sentiment just quoted, viz., that he means to apply it to 


460 ROMANS X. 7--9. 


Christ, and not to the law of Moses.—Xzeriv here means Christ in 
the sense of verse 4, where he is called τέλος νόμου... εἰς δικαιοσύνην. 
(7) Tis . . . . ἄβυοσον, who shall go down into the abyss. In the 
Hebr ew, Deut. xvii. 3, the phrase is SJ ὮΝ» ay N? not beyond 
WV the seu is tt. ν᾿ The expression differs from that of Paul as to words 
but not as to the general sense. ‘To go beyond the sea, which was 
considered as of boundless width (Job xi. 9) and impassable, is em- 
ployed by Moses as the image of what is difficult or impossible. In 
the same way Paul employs ἄβυσσον. No one returns from the world 
beneath A®P or DIN; (for any and dA are occasionally synony- 
mous, being the galas of DYDY » see Gen. xlix. 25. Ps. evii. 26. 
Sirac. Xvi. 18. xxiv. 5, and comp. Ps. exxxix. 8. Amos ix. 2. Matt. 
xi. 23.) Here ἄβυσσον designates the DIN of the Hebrews, considered 
as the abode of the dead ; as is evident from Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναγαγεῖν, 

\The general idea conveyed by the expression is, ‘Say not that an 
©. insuperable difficulty is to be overcome, in order to be a believer ; 

‘such a difficulty as would be in the way if one must ascend to heaven 
_ (in order to bring Christ down, or descend into the world beneath 
)2\ Jin order to bring him up.’ 

The quotations before us are clear examples of the liberty which 
Paul takes, of accommodating the spirit of the Old Testament to 
the objects and truths of the gospel, without any slavish subjection 
to the mere form of words. 

(8) ᾿Αλλὰ τί λέγει; te 6.» what saith ἡ éx πίστεως δικαιοσύνη ὕ It saith; 
᾿Εγγύς cov... σου, the word is nigh to thee, in thy mouth and in thy 
heart. 'Ῥῆμα here means ῥῆμα πίστεως, 2. 6.. the gospel, as the sequel 
shows; comp. 1 Tim. iv. 6. Jn thy mouth, in thine own language, 
i. e., a subject of conversation and teaching. Jn thy heart, i. e., a sub- 
ject of meditation and thought. Sentiment; ‘ The doctrine which I 
inculcate, is so far from being an obscure and inaccessible and forbid- 
den mystery, that it is daily a subject of reflection and of conversa- 
tion” That the apostle means the doctrine of faith which he taught 
and preached, is clear from the following τοῦτ᾽ torr. . . κηρύσσομεν. 

(9) “Ori, because, z. 6.7 say not in thine heart, &c., because if, &e.— 
᾿Εὰν ὅμολογήσῃς . . - - ᾿Ιησοῦν, tf thou shalt openly profess with thy 
mouth, that Jesus is Lord. 'The verb ὁμολογέω means literally eadem 
loqui, to speak what consents or agrees with something which others 
speak or maintain. But it is frequently sed to denote speaking or 
professing openly, 4. é., proclaiming openly one’s belief in Christ, 


4 


΄ 


ROMANS xX. 10. 401 


τ which was speaking in accordance with what other Christians had 
avowed. ’Ey τῷ στόματ;, by word of mouth, in words, or by the use of 
language. Κύριον I take to be the predicate of the sentence in this 
case, ὦ. 6.5 a true believer is to confess that Jesus is Lord; comp. Acts 
ii. 36. v. 81. Phil. ii. 9, 10, where the order of the words is Κύριος 
᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός (the same as here), but where it is certain that Κύριον 
must be a predicate, viz., that Jesus Christ is Lord. The position of 
Κύριον before ᾿Ιησοῦν, is for the sake of emphasis. 

Kai πιστεύσῃς . . . « νεκρῶν, and shalt believe in thy heart that God 
“hath raised him from the dead ; 1. 6.) shalt sincerely, ex animo, believe’ 
that God has raised him from the dead, and exalted him to the throne 
of universal dominion. It is not the simple fact of a resurrection of 


Jesus’ body from the tomb, which in the apostle’s viewis the great 


and distinguishing feature of Christian belief; it is the exaltation, ) 


glory, and: saving power that are consequent on the resurrection,/ 
which he evidently connects with this event. So in Phil. ἢ. 8—11.\ 
So in Acts ii. 24, 31-33, where the whole connection is very ex- 
plicit ; comp. also Heb. ii. 9. 2 Cor. iv. 14. Acts xvii. 31. Rom. 
iv. 25. 1 Cor. xv. 17—20. 

Σωθήσῃ, thou shalt be saved; i. e., a bold and open profession of the 
Christian faith, united with a sincere and hearty belief of it, will 
secure the salvation of him who makes such a profession ; all which 
shows that the way of salvation is open and easy of access. 

The reader will observe, that the apostle has here followed the 
order of the quotations which he had made from the law of Moses 
(verse 8) in stating the conditions of salvation. Independently of 
this, we might naturally expect that belief of the heart would be 
first mentioned, and then confession of themouth, ὁ. 6.) by words; for 
this is the order of nature. And so, in the explanation immediately 
subjoined, the apostle does in fact arrange his declarations ; viz. 

(10) Καρδίῳ yag ... . σωτηρίαν, for with the heart there is belief 
unto justification, and with the mouth confession 1s made unto salva- 
tion. ἸΠστεύεται and ὁμολογεῖται, 1f regarded as being in the Mid. 
voice, may be rendered in an active sense; but both may be taken 
passively and rendered as above; or we may translate: Belief is 
exercised, confession is made, &c. Our English version takes the 
first verb actively, and the last passively; which does not seem to 
have been intended by the writer. [dg illustrantis, i. 6.) before a 
clause which assigns a ground or reason for what had just been said. 
Eig δικαιοσύνην and εἰς σωτηρίαν mean, so that justification is attained 


A462 ROMANS X. LI, 12. 


and so that salvation is attained. kis here, as often, stands before a 
noun designating the object or end to be obtained, and may be called 
εἰς telicum. : 

The sentiment of the verse is the same as before; viz., sincere 
belief in Christ, and open profession of him, are essential conditions 
of salvation, and such as, being complied with, will certainly secure 
it. The design of the apostle in repeating it, is merely to make an 
appeal, respecting this point, to the feelings and convictions of those 
whom he addressed. This is an important point, in the course of 
his argumentation. 

(11) This is still farther confirmed by again bringing into view 
a text, to which he had before made an appeal i in chap. ix. 33. Πᾶς 
ὁ. .-. χκαταισχυνθήσεται, πὸ one who believeth on him shall ever be 
disappointed ; 7. e., salvation is certain to every true believer. Πᾶς 

. οὐ I have put together, and rendered no one. If the οὐ in this 
case had been connected with σᾶς by position, and not with the verb, 
the meaning would then have been, as in English, not every one, 1. 6.» 
some but not all. See New Test. Gramm. ὃ 116.1. The form ot 
the Greek is Hebraistic. The Hebrew had no method of saying 
none, except by using 23 (every one) with a negative x? (not), Ka- 
ταισχυνθήσεται, MID’, none shall be put to shame by a failure. of his 
hopes, none shall be disappointed. 

(12) The word σᾶς, which the above quotation from Is. xxviii. 16 
exhibits, gives occasion here for the apostle to bring into view a 
point which he had often insisted upon in the previous parts of his 
epistle, particularly in chaps. 111. iv., viz., that the salvation of the 
gospel is proffered to all men without distinction, and on the same 
terms. Οὐ γὰρ... Ἕλληνος, for there is no difference between the 
Jew and the Greek, or there is no distinction of Jew and Greek, i. 6.» 
no distinction as to the offers of salvation, and the terms on which it 
may be had. Te: xa/is used here, as often elsewhere, between two 
members coupled together closely by the sentence, but diverse or 
antithetic in respect to meaning. Γάρ dlustrantis, viz., illustrating the 
σᾶς of the preceding assertion. In fact, there is a singular succcs- 
sion here of clauses, arising one out of another, to all of which γάρ is 
prefixed. Thus in verse 10, καρδία γὰρ x. τ. λ., assigns a ground or 
confirmation of the preceding declaration ; verse 11, τέλει γὰρ κι το Asy 
assigns a ground of confirmation, in respect to what had been ad- 
vanced in verse 10, i. ¢., it appeals to the Scriptures in confirmation 
of it; verse 12, οὐ γὰρ x. τ, A. 18 again a confirmation of the declara- 


ROMANS x. 12. 463 


tion σᾶς... οὐ ἐπαισχυνθήσεται, and this last declaration is, in its turn, 
confirmed by two succeeding ones, viz., ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς x. τ. λ., and πᾶς γὰρ 
ὃς % τ. 2d, the first of which contains a declaration of the apostle, and 
the second an appeal to the Scriptures confirming this declaration : so 
that here are no less than /ive clauses in immediate succession, all of 
which have a γάρ prefixed, and in the same sense throughout, 7. 6.» 
each γάρ stands in a clause which serves to confirm or illustrate the 
preceding assertion. ‘This is altogether characteristic of the manner 
of Paul; who in the course of making a single declaration, often 
~ throws out words which suggest whole trains of thought that are but 
indirectly connected with the main object of the declaration, but 
which the apostle stops in order to express ; and in expressing them, 
he is often led again to other thoughts connected with these subor- 
dinate ones; and these other thoughts again lead to a third series (if 
they may be so named) ; and after expressing all these, the writer 
returns again, and resumes his main subject ; compare for example 
Rom. i. 1—7, where vers. 1 and 7 belong together; Rom. v. 12—18, 
where ver. 18 is a resumption of the subject in ver. 12, and a comple- 
tion of the comparison there begun. So in Eph. ii. 1—iy. 1. where 
iii. 1 is immediately connected with iv. 1, while there is a parenthesis 
(so to speak) of twenty verses between. It is this manner of unfold- 
ing his thoughts, which gives birth to so many instances of γάρ, 
whose proper use is, to stand before a clause that is added in order 
to assign a reason of what precedes, or to exhibit an illustration or 
confirmation of it. Now inasmuch as the apostle Paul often writes 
in the way above described, where one thought grows out of another 
in succession (as in the case above); so it is not strange that we have 
a γάρ that corresponds with declarations of this nature, and therefore 
often repeated ; a circumstance, I may add, which seems not to Lave 
been duly noticed by the great body of commentators. 

Ὃ γὰρ. . . . πάντων, for there is the same Lord of all; ἃ. 6.) the 
Jews and Gentiles have one common Lord and Master; comp. Rom. 
iit. 29, 30. iv. 16, 17.---πλουτῶν. .. . αὐτόν, abounding [in goodness | 
toward all who call upon him. πλουτῶν means being rich, having 
abundance, viz., of wealth. But here the connection shows, of course, 
that the apostle means rich in spiritual blessings, abounding in spi- 
ritual favours towards men.—’ Επικαλουμένοις ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, like the Heb. 
nvANP, means making supplication to him, performing acts of 
devotion to him. Ἱπάντας here again shows, that the goodness of God 
is not limited to the Jewish nation, but equally proffered to all. 


464 ROMANS X. 13, 14. 


(13) This is confirmed again by another quotation which exhibits 
the same πᾶς. Πᾶς yag... owjoeras, for every one who calls on the 
name of the Lord, shail be saved., Here we have the full Hebrew 
form, viz., 77) OWI NP ὝΝῸΞ every true worshipper of God; 
ὄνομα being pleonastic, as in “ the name of the God of Jacob defend 
thee,” “the name of the Lord is a strong tower,” &e. 

In regard to the quotations in vers. 11 and 13, from Is. xxviii. 16 
and Joel iii. 5 (ii. 32), it has been frequently remarked, that the 
original Hebrew in neither place exhibits Christ as the object of sup- 
plication and the author of salvation. In a certain sense this is true ; 
2. é., itis true, that the sacred writers of the Old Testament, in these 
passages, seem to have had principally in view the confidence which 
is placed in God in a season of danger and distress, and the promise 
that such confidence should not be in vain. But here again, as in a 
multitude of other cases of the like nature, it is the principle of action 
which is the main question, and not the special relation of it in ancient 
times. Is the principle the same under the Christian dispensation 
as it was under the Jewish one, viz., that those who are exposed to 
danger and distress, and who pat their trust in God, shall obtain 
deliverance? Is this true in a spiritual, as well as in a temporal 
respect? Or rather, is there not a σλήρωσις to this promise under 
the gospel? This will not be denied. Paul did not expect his read- 
ers to deny it; and consequently he has made appeals in vers. 11, 13, 
which apply specially to Christ; although the passages, iu their origi- 
nal connection, do not seem to have had such a special reference. 
But in doing this (verses 13—15 show clearly that he has done it), 
he has authorized us to apply to Christ the same divine worship and 
honour, which the saints of ancient days applied to Jehovah. Other- 
wise how could he make such an application of the words before us? 
He must have known that his readers would of course see, that he 
applied the very same things to Christ, which the writers of the Old 
Testament referred to Jehovah; and consequently, that he considered 
him as entitled to the same honours and confidence. I see not any 
way in which we can make less out of the passage than this, viz., 
that all who believe in Christ shall be saved, and all who pray to him 
shall be saved. Of course, sincere belief and supplication are here 
intended. 

(14) The apostle here anticipates an objection which he expected 
the Jew would make to his argument, which urges the necessity of 
calling on Christ in order to be saved: ‘ How shall one call on him, 


ROMANS Χ, 14. 465 


unless he is first a believer in him, 7. ¢., first persuaded that he is the 
proper object of religious invocation! And how shall he believe 
this, provided no declaration of it has been made to him! And how 
can such a declaration be made, unless by a messenger or preacher 
duly commissioned? For the Scripture itself bestows its encomium 
on such messengers, and thus impliedly recognises the importance of 
them.’ To all this the apostle gives an answer in the sequel, vers. 
16 seq. 

It seems to me almost a matter of indifference, whether (with Gro- 


_tius) we suppose the apostle to introduce an objector as speaking 


here in the person of an unbelieving Jew, or whether (with Tho- 
luck and most commentators) we suppose the apostle himself to utter 
the words in question. If we attribute them to the apostle, we must 
suppose him to be uttering what an objector would naturally say; 
and this is the substantial part of the whole matter. It can be of no 
consequence by whom it is uttered. : 
Nor is it necessary to suppose, that all which comes from an ob- 
jector is false. The speciousness of an objection consists in the 
claims of some part of it to be considered as true. We may concede, 
therefore, that the reasoning of the objector here is correct, if you 
allow him his premises; ὅν ¢., it is true that men must first believe 
on a Saviour, before they will call upon him; and that he must be 
preached to them, before they can believe on him; and that in order 
to this, there must be some one to preach. It is true that the Scrip- 
ture recognizes the importance of such messengers. But then, the 
main question here after all is, whether the fact assumed as a basis 
of all this reasoning, viz., that the Jew had not heard the gospel, is 
true. The apostle proceeds in the sequel to show that this is not the 
case; and therefore that the whole objection falls to the ground. 
Πῶς οὖν. .. ἐπίστευσαν, how then shall they call [on him] in whom 
they have not believed ? 7. e., how shall they pray to him, do religious 
homage to him, who is not the object of belief or confidence? Ody 
marks here a relation to the foregoing assertions. “It is used,” says 
Passow, ‘in interrogative sentences, with reference to preceding 
assertions which are conceded.” So here, the objector (or Paulin 
his place) says, ‘ Conceding now that all who call on him shall be 
saved, yet how can men call on one of whom they have not heard, 
&c.” By saying this he aims to apologize for the unbelief of many 
Jews who still rejected the Saviour. This delicate shade of οὖν is 


not noted in the lexicons of Wahl and Bretschneider. Ἷ 
G 


465 ROMANS X, 10. 


Eis ὅν here must mean the Lord Jesus Christ ; for surely he is the 
specific object of faith or belief, about which the apostle is here dis- 
coursing. 

᾿ Πῶς δὲ σπιστεύσουσιν [εἰς αὐτὸν] οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν; and how shall they believe 
[on him] of whom they have not heard? That is, before one can 
believe on a Saviour, he must have some knowledge of him; this 
Saviour must be proclaimed to him. Οὗ here is the Genitive gov- 
erned by ἤκουσαν ; “ verba sensfis gaudent Genitivo.”—Kygbecovreg, a 
preacher, i is one who proclaims in ‘public any matter, who publishes 
aloud; in the Hebrew 1¥24. 

(15) Πῶς δὲ . .. ἀποσταλῶσι; And how shall they preach, except 
they be sent? 7. ¢., unless they are divinely commissioned; comp. Jer. 
xxii 21. ; 

Kalas γέγραπται, as itis written. The connection of the sentiment 
which follows with that which precedes, I have not found exhibited 
in any commentator so as to satisfy me. Most critics do not appear 
to have felt any difficulty with the passage, and have said little or 
nothing to the purpose upon it. But in my own mind there is diffi- 
culty in seeing how the sequel here either illustrates or confirms the 
declaration immediately preceding. The course of the thought seems" 
to be this, viz., ‘ the importance of the heralds of salvatior is implied 
in the high commendation which the Scripture bestows upon them,’ 
This is indeed truly implied in the words quoted ; for why should 
these heralds be spoken of with high and joyful commendation, 
if they are not important instruments in the salvation of men? So 
the speaker in this case, in making this quotation, illustrates what 
he has just suggested respecting the importance of the heralds of 
salvation. 

Og ὡραῖοι. . . τὰ ἀγαθά, how beautiful are the feet of those who 
publish salvation, who proclaim good tidings! The Septuagint trans- 
lates thus: ὡς ὥρα ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρέων, ὡς πόδες εὐαγγελιζομένου ἀκοὴν εἰρήνης, ὡς 
εὐαγγελιζομένου ἀγαθάϊ So the Codex Vaticanus; and I suppose that 
after the latter ὡς the translator must have supplied in his own mind 
the word σόδες, in order to make out a sense which would be good. 
The Hebrew runs thus: “ How beautiful on the mountains are the 
feet of him who proclaims glad tidings, who publishes peace, who 
makes proclamation of good!” Is. lii. 7. Paul has evidently made 
a new translation, in his quotation; but he has abridged the original 
Hebrew.— Οἱ σόδες, feet, 1. e., a part of the person taken for the whole; 
as often in Hebrew, and so in other languages; comp. Acts v. 9. The 


ROMANS xX. 16. 401 


reason why οἱ πόδες is here chosen rather than any other part of the 
body to be the representative of the person would seem to be, that 
the heralds who proclaim any thing (02), travel from ai to 
place in order to discharge their duty. 

Εἰρήνην, Dio » good, salvation, good in its most extensive : sense. 
---Οθ᾿ὐαγγελίζω μήτι primarily, according to its etymology, to publish 
good news. But secondarily, it conveys only the general idea to 
publish; consequently it takes after it the Acc. of a noun mec 

the thing published, as here εἰρήνην ati een σὰ ἀγαθά. 
~ (160) ᾿Αλλ οὐ πάντες . . . εὐαγγελίῳ, but all have not obeyed the 
gospel ; 7. e., notwithstanding what you say (ἀλλά concedes), still it is 
true, that all to whom the gospel has been published have not be- 
come obedient to it. So I feel compelled to explain this passage; on 
the connection of which I have been able to find no commentator 
who has given me satisfaction. ‘The connection I take to be thus. 
The objector (in verses 14 and 15) pleads by way of apology for his 
unbelieving countrymen, that it could not be expected they would 
believe without the gospel being preached to them, for the Scripture 
itself acknowledges and proclaims the importance of preachers; thus 
meaning to intimate that many of them had not heard it proclaimed. 
To this the apostle answers, (1) That many who had heard it, viz., 
such as the objector himself must concede had heard it, did not be- 
lieve it; and he quotes Is. lili. 1, in order to show that the great 
prophet had predicted this same thing. 

To this the Jew replies, that the very quotation which he makes 
contains an implication of the sentiment, that men must hear the 
gospel before they can believe it, who hath believed our REPORT, 
nyo’ ? meaning thereby to intimate, that a part of his kinsmen 
after the flesh, at least, are not to be involved in the charge of cri- 
minal unbelief. This last intimation the apostle immediately takes 
up, and replies to it, (2) In verses 11—21, by repeated quotations 
from the Old Testament, showing that they all had heard the glad 
tidings of the gospel, or at least showing that what was said in 
ancient times of the Jews, in respect to the warnings and promises of 
God, may now be said with equal truth and propriety. It is the 
principle of the apostle’s assertion or reasoning, which he designs to 
support and justify by these quotations. In both ancient and gospel 
times it could never have been strictly and literally true, that to 
every individual Jew the message of life and salvation has been ac- 
tually proclaimed. Nor was it necessary to the apostle’s purpose. 


468 ROMANS x. 17, 18. 


It was enough, if the proclamation had been openly, and repeatedly, 
and perseveringly made among the Jews, so that all who would, had 
opportunities of hearing it.” Their ignorance in such a case would 
of course be voluntary, and therefore altogether without excuse. 

It is so at the present hour. Thousands in this land have never 
heard a gospel-sermon, or read a book which disclosed the truths of 
the gospel, in their whole lives. But.why? ‘The sound of the go- 
spel is gone out into all the land, its words even to the end thereof; 
and ignorance is, certainly for the most part, voluntary and criminal; 
nor can it be justly alleged as making at all against the general asser- 
tion, that the terms of salvation are published to all. 

With this explanation of the course of thought, our future way 
will be comparatively easy and plain. ὃ 

Ἤσαΐας . .. ἡμῶν; for Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our 
report? Is, liii.1. That is, the prophet complains that the declara- 
tions made respecting the Messiah are not credited by those who 
hear them. Here then is an example of Jews who hear and believe 
not; and one to the apostle’s purpose, who had just said, that not all 
the Jews who did hear believed the gospel. The same ¢hing is as- 
serted by Isaiah, which the apostle now asserts; so that he could not 
be accused of producing a new or strange charge. 

(17) "Agu . . . Θεοῦ, faith then comes by hearing, and hearing by 
the word of God; i. e., the very quotation you make concedes the 
principle, that the gospel must first be published before men can be 
taxed with criminality for unbelief; for Isaiah complains of those to 
whom it had been published.—'H δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὃ, 6.7 the 
word of God, the gospel, must first be proclaimed before it can be 
heard, understood, and believed. The verse I take to be the sug- 
gestion of the objector. He means to insist by it, that many of the 
Jews are not culpable for unbelief, inasmuch as they have not heard 
the gospel, and hearing it is necessary to the believing of it. 

(18) The apostle admits the correctness of the principle, viz., that 
faith cometh by hearing ; but he denies the fact which was implied 
in the statement of it, viz., that there was a part of the Jewish nation 
who had not heard, 7. ¢., whohad not enjoyed the opportunity to hear. 
So the sequel: ᾿Αλλὰ Aiyw.. . ἤκουσαν; but I reply: Have they not 
heard? Μενοῦνγε, yes, verily; compounded of μέν, οὖν, and γέ. Mendy 
asserts, and. γέ increases the intensity of the assertion. In the μὴ οὐκ 
before ἤκουσαν, the μή is the sign of interrogation, and οὐκ simply qua- 
lifies the verb; see New Test. Gramm. § 153. 5. 


ROMANS x. 19. 469 


Εἰς πᾶσαν. . . τὰ ῥήματα αὐτῶν, quoted from Ps. xix. 5, in the words 
of the Septuagint, which here follows the Hebrew. Ὁ φθόγγος αὐτῶν, 
in the original Psalm, means the voice or sound of the works of na- 
ture, which show or declare in all the earth that he who made them 
is God, and the God of glory. The apostle seems to use the words 
in this place simply as the vehicle of his own thoughts, as they were | 
very convenient and appropriate. The expressions πᾶσαν τὴν γὴν and 
τὰ πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης, are common and figurative expressions to de- 
signate the idea of far and wide, what is unlimited in extent, &c. 
As originally employed by the Psalmist, they may be taken in their 
greatest latitude. As used by the apostle, they may be taken in the 
like latitude so far as the Jews are concerned; for it is of them, and 
them only, that he is here particularly speaking. 

(19) ᾿Αλλὰ λέγω, but I say, i.e, 1 reply again in reference to the 
opportunity of the Jews to gain some knowledge of the gospel. 

- Μὴ Ἰσραὴλ οὐκ ἔγνω; Doth. not Israel know? Whit. da not said, 
and has been matter of much controversy. To me, however, it 
seems plain, that it is to be gathered from the subsequent context; 
if so, it is clear that the sentiment is: ‘ Doth not Israel know (as I 
have before said, verses 11, 12), that the Gentiles are to be received 
as well as the Jews, and the Jews to be cast off for unbelief? The 
apostle now proceeds to quote passages of the Old Testament, which 
show that the ancient prophets have explicitly declared the same 
thing. Reiche construes the phrase thus : ‘Has not [God] loved or 
acknowledged Israel?? Comp. Amos ui. 2. Hos. viii. 5. Rom. xi. 2. 
But I cannot regard this as congruous with the context. 

Πρῶτος Μωῦσῆς λέγει, first, Moses saith. Τιρῶτος I understand here as 
meaning first in point or order of time, like the Hebrew TW: 
comp. the Lex. under πρῶτος. 

᾿Εγὼ... παροργιῶ ὑμᾶς, I will move you to jealousy by that which is 
no nation, I will excite you to indignation by a foolish people; i. 6.) 
I will make you jealous, by receiving to favour those whom you 
regard as unworthy of the name of a people (éévos, ‘13), viz. the Gen- 
tiles; I will render you indignant, by receiving to favour a foolish 
people, 22 ‘3. The Hebrew 223 designates one that is spiritually 
. foolish, ὦ, ὁ., a wicked, unbelieving person, who contemns God. 
“ The fool (222) hath said in his heart: There is no God.” “Fools 
(D°232) make a mock at sin.” Consequently the epithet ἀσύνετος 
here designates a wicked or idolatrous people. The meaning of the 
whole is: ‘I will receive to my favour the heathen whom you re-~ 


410 ROMANS Χ. 20. 


gard as despicable, and who are without God and without hope in 
the world’ In Deut. xxxii. 21 (from which these words are quoted), 
‘God complains of the Jews, that they had apostatized from him and 
gone after idols, and thus provoked his: jealousy and indignation. 
Because they had so done, he declares that he will, at some future 
period, provoke them, and excite their jealousy, by -receiving a 
heathen and idolatrous people in their stead. 

Whether Moses (in Deut. xxxii. 21) had in view the salvation of 
the Gentiles in gospel times, cannot well be determined. There is 
nothing in the context adapted to proveit; and I may add, nothing 
which forbids this supposition. 6 this however as it may, it is 
enough for the apostle’s purpose, that the same principle is developed 
in the words of Moses, which is developed by the reception of the 
Gentiles into the Christian church in his time. Now as the Jews 
were jealous and angry because of this reception, so the apostle 
might appeal to the declarations of Moses, as an exhibition of the 
very same views and sentiments which he had been teaching. ἡ 

(20) ᾿Ησαΐας 6... λέγει, but Isaiah comes out boldly and says, In 
ἀποτολμῷᾷ, the ἀπό augments the signification ;: and this is often, (al- 
though not always) the case, when prepositions are compounded 
with verbs. 

Eigtdyy. . . . ἐπερωτῶσι, Twas found by those who sought me not, 
I manifested myself to those who did not inquire after me; t. e., the 
Gentiles, who had been accustomed to serve dumb idols, and had no 
knowledge of the true God, and did not seek after him, have, through 
the gospel, been brought near to him, and he has, in Christ, dis- 
closed himself to those who were before in utter ignorance of him 
and made no inquiries for him. The passage is quoted from Is. Ixv. 1, 
Ὁ Ni? NYIDI PNY ND? ‘UI, which the Seventy have 
translated agreeably to the words of the apostle, but in citing these 
words Paul has reversed the order of the clauses. The translation 
is ad sensum only: the more literal and exact shade of meaning in 
the Hebrew is: J am sought after [viz., as an object of religious in- 
quiry and worship] by those who have not [hitherto] asked after 
me, 1 am found by those who did not seek for me. But as the pur- 
pose of the apostle is merely to designate the general idea of the 
prophet, viz., that God would be worshipped, at some future time, 
by those who had hitherto been “strangers to the covenant of pro- 
mise,” and “without God in the world,” so the version of the 
Seventy is fully adequate to his purpose. 


ROMANS ΧΙ. 1. 471 


Thus far the apostle quotes in respect to the reception of the 
Gentiles. There still remains an important part behind, viz., the 
rejection of the Jews for their unbelief; or at least their unbelief 
itself, which implies their consequent rejection. __ 

(21) Πρὸς δὲ . . . ἀντιλέγοντα, but unto Israel he saith: All the day 
long have I stretched out my hand to a disobedient and gainsaying 
people. “OAny τὴν ἡμέραν, pin-23 » continually, constantly, without inter- 
mission ; which implies long εὐ persevering efforts on the part of 
God’s messengers to the Jews, and peculiar hardness of heart and 
blindness of mind on their part. 70. stretch out the hands, is to 
address by way of inviting, beckoning, beseeching, warning; comp. 
Prov. i. 24.— Απειθοῦντα characterizes unbelief in what is said by 
God’s messengers; ἀντιλέγοντα, contradiction, or gainsaying. 

Thus has the apostle shown once more, and in a way different 
from that which he took in chap. iv., that the Gentiles stand on an 
equal footing with the Jews, as to gospel privileges, and that God 
may, in perfect consistency with his ancient promises and declara- 
tions, cast off the Jews, when they persist in unbelief, and receive 
believing Gentiles as his people in their stead. The repulsive nature 
of this doctrine to the feelings of his proud and self-righteous coun- 
trymen, seems to be the reason why the apostle recurs to it so often, 
and enforces it by such repeated appeals to the Old Testament. 


CHAP. XI. 1—36. 


THE apostle having thus plainly asserted the rejection of the Jews, and the reception of the 
‘Gentiles into their place as the people of God, and this without having yet made particular ex- 
planations or limitations, now proceeds to suggest various considerations which might serve to 
correct the wrong views that his countrymen would probably entertain in regard to the declara- 
tions which he had just made. The Jew would very naturally ask (as Paul suggests in ver. 1): 
“Is it true, then, that God has actually cast his people away, to whom pertained the adoption, 
and the glory, and the covenant, and the promises? Can this be consistent with his veracity and 
his faithfulness—with the numerous promises which he made to Abraham, and which he often 
confirmed and repeated to his posterity ? 

It was natural for a Jew to ask such questions; and the apostle, anticipating them, proceeds 
in chapter xi. toanswer them. He shows in verses 1—5, that now, as formerly in times of the 
greatest declension, God has still a remnant among his people who are true believers, ἡ, ¢., belong 
to the spiritual seed of Abraham. But this remnant are, as he has already maintained in chaps. 
viii. ix., those whom the elcetion of God according to his purposes of grace has made the subjects 


472 ROMANS ΧΙ. 1. 


of his mercy, and who are not saved by their own merits; while the rest are given up to their 
own hardness of heart and blindness of mind, even as their own Scriptures have expressly fore- 
told, verses 6—10. Yet it will not always remain thus. The whole of the nation will, at some 
future day, be brought within the pale of the Christian church. Their present general unbelief 
is now the oceasion of the gospel being preached to the Gentiles, and of the increase of the Chris- 
tian church among them ; so that even their rejection has been the occasion of blessings to others. 
How much more then is to be hoped, from their general return to God! verses 11—15. 

This return must take place. The nation, from its origin, were consecrated to God, and they 
must yet return to him; for although some of its branches were broken off because of unbelief, 
and others were grafted in to supply their place, yet in due time they will be again received. 
The Gentiles, therefore, who have been grafted in, can have no reason to indulge in pride and 
boasting on account of this. They are cautioned against such a spirit, and exhorted to guard 
with the greatest watchfulness against unbelief, since this would occasion them also to be re- 
jected. Nor ought they to demean themselves loftily toward the Jews, who were yet to be re- 
ceived back to the divine favour, and fully restored as the people of God, vers. 16é—27. Although 
they are now enemies of the gospel, good comes to the Gentiles through this; and the promises 
made to their fathers of old are not forgotten, and will yet be fully carried into execution, vers. 
28,29. Although now in a state of unbelief, they will obtain mercy in the like manner as the 
Gentiles have obtained it who were once in the same state, vers. 30,31. For God has showed both 
Gentiles and Jews, that they were included in unbelief and justly subject to the condemning 
sentence of the law; and he has suffered them to come into such a state, that he might display, 
in the more signal manner, his mercy toward them, ver. 32. The ways and judgments of God 
in his proceedings with Jews and Gentiles, are beyond the reach of human wisdom; they are 
deep and unfathomable mysteries, which can be fully searched out and known only by the Infi- 
nite Mind. We can admire and adore, but never fathom the depths thereof, vers. 33—36. 

At last, then, the apostle comes fully to the conclusion, that there are mysteries in the divine 
proceedings relative to the reception of some and the rejection of others, which are entirely be- 
yond the reach of human comprehension. God has reserved the reasons of such proceedings to 
himself, and not disclosed them to his creatures. If this be truly the case, then is there not 
something more in these awful mysteries, than what those admit or believe who strenuously re- 
ject. the doctrine of election? On the ground which they maintain, I do not see why the mind 
of the apostle should be so deeply affected with the mysterious and unsearchabdle nature of the 
whole transaction. This is, indeed, a very obvious remark; but I must leave it to the reader, 
whether it has not an important bearing on the exegesis of chaps. viii. ix. xi., and some other 
parts of this epistle. I cannot help thinking that Paul had something more in his mind, than 
they have who read him in the manner stated—something different also from that which they 
admit. 


(1) Λέγω οὖν, the words of an objector; as much as to say: ‘If 
this be true which you affirm, then must it not follow, that God has 
rejected his chosen people? Οὖν is very common in questions which 
have a reference to what had been before said. 

Τὸν λαὺν αὑτοῦ, his own people, i. e., his own peculiar people, the 
Jews. And here the objector means by λαὸν αὑτοῦ, the whole of the 
nation, as the sequel, which exhibits the answer, evidently shows. 

In reply to the question thus put Paul answers, that an universal 
rejection of the Jews was not meant to be affirmed by what he had 
said. He adduces himself as an exception to such a rejection, and 


ROMANS XI. 2, 3. 473 


a proof that it was aot meant to be asserted by him.—Ka? γὰρ ἐγὼ 
x. T Avy for I myself or even I. The καὶ in this case qualifies ἐγώ as 
an intensive particle, which is best rendered as above. ᾿Ισραηλήτης, 
t. 6.5 a descendant of Israel. ’Ex origuarog’ ABeadéu is only asynonyme 
with the preceding expression for the purpose of amplification, or with 
particular reference to the same phrase which is often repeated in 
the Old Testament.—ovAj¢ Βενιαμίν, so he describes himself in Phil. 
iii. 5. It is merely a circumstance of particularity in description, 
which serves to make it more impressive. 

(2) οὐκ... προέγνω, God hath not cast away his people whom he 
foreknew, 7. e., whom he before determined or decided should be his 
people. In other words, he has not utterly rejected the Jewish peo- 
ple, whom he from the first ordained te be his people. See on the 
word σροέγνω in chap. vili. 29, and compare ver. 29 below. To ren- 
der προέγνω formerly acknowledged, does not accord with the design 
of the passage. The sentiment plainly is such as is developed in chap. 
viii. 28, by the οὕς προέγνω x τ. 2.3; and the writer in his choice of 
language here, seems plainly to refer to the words there employed. 
The sentiment is, that the of xara πρόθεσιν κλητοί among the Jews are 
by no means cast off. 

Ἢ οὖκ . . . . ἡ γραφή, know ye not what the Scripture says m 
Elijah ? i. ¢.,in that part or portion of it which is cited by the name 
of Elijah, because it contains his history. The division of the Scrip- 
ture into chapters and verses, is a modern thing; nothing of this 
kind occurs in the writings of the ancient fathers. Such a division 
of the Hebrew Scriptures was made by Hugo de Cardinalis in the 
twelfth century; and of the New Testament, by the famous printer 
and editor, Robert Stephens. Of course, reference to the Scriptures 
in ancient times was in a very different way from that now practised: 
and was for the most part, such as we see in the verse before us. 
So the Rabbins cite, in the Mishna; and so the Greek authors were 
accustomed to cite Homer; 6. 4.» ἐν τῷ τῶν νεῶν καταλόγῳ, in the cata- 
logue of the ships, i. ¢., the passage which contains such a catalogue, 
&c.; comp. Mark xii. 26, ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου, 7. 6.. in the passage which 
᾿ gives an account of the burning bush. The 4 is the mere sign of 
interrogation. 

Ὡς, when; so it often’ signifies. ’Evruyydver . . . . κατὰ, means to 
plead against, to make intercession against ; as ἐντυγχάνειν . . . ὑπέρ 
means to intercede for. 

(3) Κύριε. .. μου, cited from] K. xix. 10, ad sensum and with 


474 ROMANS ΧΙ. 4. 


contractions; also not exactly in the order of the Hebrew text which 
runs thus: “ And he [Elijah] said, I am very jealous for Jehovah, 
the God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken thy cove- 
“nant, they have destroyed thine altars, and killed thy prophets; and 
I only am left, and they seek my life to take it away.” The pro- 
phet complains, in these words, of what he supposed to be the uni- 
versal apostasy of Israel. Karéoxa ay, lit. digged down; for altars 
were usually made with stones and earth or turf, so that digging down 
characterizes the kind of effort necessary to destroy them—T%» 
ψυχήν, natural or animated life ; often so in the Hebrew; comp. Matt. 
ii. 20. To seek one’s life, i. 6.7 to seek to take away one’s life, is a 
Hebraism. 

(4) Χρημωτισμός, divine response, from χρηματίζω, to do public busi- 
ness, to give public responses, &c. In the New Testament, it is ap- 
plied only to the response or warning of the true God.—Eyauré, 
Dativus commodi, as grammarians say, viz. the person or thing for 
which any thing is or is done, is put in the Dative ; for myself means 
for my service.— Επτακισχιλίους ἄνδρας, the number seven is probably 
employed here in the way of a round number, 1. ¢., a definite in- 
stead of an indefinite number. So the Romans were wont to use 
sexcenti ; and in like manner 70 and 40 are frequently used in the 
Scripture. So much, however, is to be understood by it here, viz. 
a very considerable number. 

"Exaurvay γόνυ, bowed the knee, a part of the religious service ren- 
dered to idols. Bowing the knee is an attitude of reverence and 
supplication. Baal (293) was the name of the principal god among 
the Canaanites, Carthaginians, Assyrians,and Babylonians. The Phe- 
nicians called him ‘3118 (Adoni), and the Greeks ’Adovis. Τῇ Βάαλ, 
with the fem. article τῇ ; and so also in the Sept., in Hos. ii. 8. Jer. 
ii. 8. xi. 13. xix. 5. Zeph. i. 4, also Tobit 1.5. To solve this sin- 
gular appearance (for Baal generally has the mase. article), Eras- 
mus, Beza, and Grotius, suppose that ἡ εἰκών is understood, so that 
the full expression would be τῇ εἰκόν, Βάαλ, Others (ὁ. 4.) Brais, 
Beyer, C. Schmid) suppose that there was a female deity by the name 
of Baal, 7. 6.7 the moon; like 20 and ΒΡ (Jer. xxxii. 35. xliv. 17, 
18, 19, 25), which were symbols of the sun and moon. But the 
objection to this is, that in Jer. xxxii. 35, ἡ Βάαλ (fem.) is the same 
as ὁ MoAdy(masc.). Others suppose that Baal was ἀνδρογύνης, a her- 
maphrodite divinity, and so might take either ὁ or 4; like the Latin 
Deus Lunus and Dea Luna; and this seems most probable, at least 


ROMANS XI. 5, 6. 475 


~ the Seventy seem to have been of this opinion. Others solve it by 
supposing the fem. article to be applied in the way of contempt; just 
as Mohammed (Koran Sur. LIII.) speaks with contempt of the hea- 
then Arabians, who had gods with fem. names; and so in Arabic, the 
name of an idol is God (in the fem.) ; and so the Rabbins call idol 
gods, Nits, gods (fem.). 

(5) Οὕτως καὶ. . .. γέγονεν, im like manner, then, even at the pre- 
sent time, there is a remnant according to the election of grace; 1. 6.» 
as in ancient times, when it appeared to the prophet Elijah as if apo- 
stasy was universal among his countrymen, and yet there was not a 


few sincere worshippers of the true God, although unknown to him; 
so at the present time, although the unbelief of the Jews appears to 


be nearly universal, yet God has a people among them, viz., all such 
as he has of his mercy chosen to everlasting lies. comp. Salis 28, seq. 
ix. 15, 16, 23, 27. The οὖν here has reference to what precedes. Οὕτως 
ουὖἷν means as much as to say: ‘Such then being the case,’ or ‘ cir- 
cumstances being as I have now related.’ —Ka/ qualifies ἐν τῷ viv καιρῷ, 
according to the version.—Acjuua, a remnant, i. 6.5 a small number, 
a part which though considerable in itself is small compared with 
another part. So here, the number of Jewish believers, although 
then considerable and important, was small compared with the whole 
number of unbelievers. Consequently ?sjuua may be used to de- 
signate it; comp. ix. 27.—Kas’ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος, according to an elec- 
tion which is not made on the ground of merit, but of mercy. God 
has not chosen Jewish believers unto salvation, because their obe- 
dience first made them the objects of his choice; but he chose them 
because he had mercy on them; comp. the texts cited above from 
Rom. ix., and the commentary on them. That the apostle means 
fully to convey such a sentiment, is plain from the verse that fol- 
lows; viz. 

(6) Εἰ δὲ. .« .. ἔργων, but if it be of grace, then it is not at all of 
works ; 1. 6.7 if God’s ἐκλογή, his choosing this λεζωμα to salvation, be 
gratuitous on his part, and wholly unmerited on the part of man, 
it follows that it is not ἐξ ἔργων, ὃ, e, that it is not meritorious, it is 
not on account of any desert on the part of men either seen or fore- 
seen, that he makes them the objects of his mercy.’ Ἐπεὶ 4. . . χαρίς, 
otherwise grace would be no longer grace; 1. e., if this were not so, 
then it would be improper to speak of grace in our salvation; for if 
men are chosen on account of any merit or desert, then grace is not 


476 ROMANS XI. 7. 


the pec of their being chosen, but merit; which would contradict 
the very idea of grace. 

This must be true; for men are saved either because they have 
wholly obeyed the divine law, or on the ground of grace merely ; 
i. 6.7) they are saved either because they are able to advance claims 
which meet the demands of the law, or else it must be on the ground 
of pure gratuity. Now, as all men have sinned, it is not the first ; 
of course it must be the second. If you ask: ‘ May it not be partly 
by grace, and partly by merit?’ Then our text lies directly in the 
way of an affirmative answer (as do many others also); and it is, 
moreover, a conclusive answer in the negative to this, that ‘every 
one is cursed, who continueth not in all things written in the book 
of the law to do them;’ ‘the soul that sinneth shall die.’ 

E/ 62... ἔργων, but if of works, then ἐξ is not at all of grace, other- 
wise work is no more work; the mere converse of the preceding 
sentiment, and most probably a gloss from the margin. It is omitted 
in Codices A., B., C., D., E., F., G., 47, and in the Coptic, Arme- 
nian, Aithiopic, Vulgate, and Italic versions; also in Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Damascenus, Jerome, and generally in the Latin Fathers, 
Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Griesbach, Tholuck, Flatt, and others, 
regard it as spurious. At all events, it adds nothing to the senti- 
ment of the passage ; but is merely an echo, in another form, of the 
preceding sentiment. 

(7) Ti οὖν; what then, ἐ, e., what is the sum and substance of that 
which I have been saying ?-O ἐπιζήτεῖ . . . . ἐπέτυχε, that which 
Israel sought after, he hath not obtained ; i. 6.) the justification which 
he sought to obtain by his own merit (comp. x. 3), he has not ob- 
tained. Τοῦτο is in many MSS. and copies, instead of τούτου ; for 
ἐπιτυγχάνω almost always governs the Genitive in Greek, poetry only 
being excepted where it sometimes takes the Accusative. Still, the 
weight of authority in the present case is in favour of τούτου ; and 
accordingly Dr. Knapp receives it into the text. 

Ἢ δὲ ἐχλογή, but the election, i. e., the elect, the abstract (as gram- 
marians say) being put for the concrete, as is often the case, 6. g., 
Rom. ii. 26,27, &c. The meaning is: ‘Although the Jews, who 
have sought justification by their own merit, have altogether failed 
as to obtaining this end in this way; yet those who are called ac- 
cording to the gracious purpose of God (viii. 28), who are justified 
by his merey through Christ Jesus, have obtained justification in a 


ROMANS ΧΙ. 7. 477 


way which others rejected; and therefore they have not failed in 
the accomplishment of their object.’ 

Οἱ δὲ λοιποί, t. 6.0 the unbelieving part of the Jews, those who did 
not belong to the ἐχλογή---᾿ Επωρώθησαν, were blinded. The word 
πωρός, is equivalent to τυφλός ; and the verb σπωρόω (in the active 
voice) means to make blind, but in the passive to be blind, to become 
blind, &c. It is applied in a secondary sense to the mind; and so 
_ the apostle here employs it. It indicates state or condition ; but not 
. necessarily the cause or agent by which that state or condition is 
' produced. Thus οἱ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν may mean merely, that the re- 
‘ mainder (the unbelieving part of the Jews) were in a state of blind- 
ness. In itself, also, it is capable of designating the idea, that they 
were made blind by the agency of another; and in this case, if this 
be the idea, the implication would be that the agency was God’s. If 
there be difficulty in admitting this sentiment, there is no more than 
15 contained in chap. ix. 17,18; and I must refer the reader to what 
is said on those verses, in order to ayoid repetition here. To all 
those who contend vehemently against such an exegesis, and regard 
it as dishonourable and reproachful to God, and as utterly unfounded, 
Ican only say: “ Tell usingenuously, whether the gloss you put on 
ix. 17, 18, is not an explaining away of the text, rather than an ea- 
planation of it? Can the conclusion be avoided, by any candid 
philologist, that the text does there assert, that in some sense or 
other the agency of God is concerned with the hardening of sinners? 
In what sense? is a very serious and very important question, and 
one which I have endeavoured there to answer in a Scriptural man- 
ner. And in the case now before us, if ἐπωρώθησαν merely designates 
state or condition (as Bretschneider, Wahl, Tholuck, Flatt, and many 
others maintain), then to what purpose, I would ask, is the quotation 
in the next three following verses? Do these also designate no 
agent? If you say: ‘ These are only examples for illustration, but 
not predictions; I grant it. But then, how will these examples 
illustrate the case before the writer, unless they exhibit a principle 
which is the same as that avowed by the writer? And can verse 8 
be construed without the supposition that an agent is designated 
who is in some way or other concerned with the ὀφθαλμοὺς τοῦ μὴ 
βλέπειν, 1. 6.) With the πώρωσις of Israel? This is impossible, unless we 
do away by violence the most obvious sense of the apostle’s words. 
The question whether some agency on the part of God is asserted to 
be concerned with all this, seems to be one which cannot receive a 


478 ROMANS XI. 8c 


negative answer, salvo teati et salvd fide bond. But the question 
whether such an agency is concerned as makes God the proper 
author of men’s moral blindness and sins, or whether men are free 
agents and altogether accountable for their own actions, is a very dif- 
ferent one, and about which the Bible leaves us no room to doubt : 
see James i. 13, 14. 

(8) Καϑὼς γέγραπται does not of necessity mean, that what follows 
is a prediction in the appropriate sense of the word. It is a clear 
case thatsnothing can be decided from the formula of quotation; for 
very different formulas precede one and the same text, quoted for one 
and the same purpose. Here I take the force of καθώς to fall upon 
sameness of principle, in the two cases which are brought into the 
comparison; ὦ. ¢., as in ancient times God declares -respecting Israel 
(Is. xxix. 10. Deut. xxix. 4), that he gives them the spirit of slumber, 
blind eyes, and deaf ears; so now, the same thing is true respecting 
unbelievers among the Jews; for they are blinded, ἐπωρώθησαν. 

"Ἔδωκεν. . . κατανύξεως, God hath given them a slumbering spirit 
or the spirit of deep sleep, 277, ‘The original Hebrew runs thus, 
ΠΡ nm nim py Ἢ) 3; which the Seventy have rendered 
thus: "Or: σεπότικεν ὑμᾶς Κύριος πνεύματι κατανύξεως. But the apostle in 
rendering 353 by édwxz, has translated ad sensum not ad verbum. 
The Hebrew designates the specific idea of pouring out on the har- 
dened Jews the spirit of profound sleep; while Paul dropping the 
particular image which the Hebrew presents, retains only the generic 
idea of communicating such a spirit to them. It is plain, then, that 
in this case, as in many others, the apostle makes his own translation 
de novo from the Hebrew. 

᾿Οφθαλμοὺς . . . « ἡμέρας, eyes that see not and ears that hear not, 
unto this day. The original Hebrew in Deut. xxix. 4 runs thus: 
*¢ For Jehovah hath not given you a heart to understand, nor eyes 
to see, nor ears to hear, unto thisday.” Ifthis be the passage which 
Paul had in his mind, he quotes merely ad sensum. The Hebrew 
declares, that ‘God has not given Israel seeing eyes and hearing 
ears; the apostle says, that ‘he has given them eyes that see not, 
and ears that hear not; the passage in Hebrew is in the negative 
form as to the verb, and in the affirmative as to the rest of the sen- 
tence; while Paul’s declaration is in the affirmative form as to the 
verb, and negative as to the rest of the sentence. It remains, then, 
in order to make out a quotation ad sensum, merely to inquire, 
whether it is in substance the same thing to say that ‘God has not 


ROMANS ΧΙ, 9. ᾿" A79 


given seeing eyes and hearing ears,’ as it is to say that ‘God has 
given eyes that see not and ears that hear not.’ The latter sounds 
to our ear as if it indicated more active interposition on the part of 
God; but not so to the biblical writers, who, beyond all reasonable 
doubt, regarded these expressions as equivalent. It would be easy 
to prove this from a multitude of passages which assert agency on the 
part of God, when at the very same time the wicked (to whom this 
agency has respect) are represented as the cause of their own ruin, 
by their own voluntary sins. een ἡ what is said in chap. ix. 17; 
18, above. 

Dr Knapp (in his New Testament), and some other critics, sup- 
pose that Paul has quoted ὀφθαλμοὺς x. τ. A. from Is. vi. 10, and that 
ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας belongs not to the quotation, but contains the 
apostle’s own words; and so Dr Knapp has marked it in his Testa- 
ment, placing the closing member of the parenthesis which includes 
the quotation, after μὴ ἀκούειν, thus joining ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας with 
οἱ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν. But this attributes an idiom to Paul, which he 
seems to have made a very unfrequent use of. “Ewes τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας 
belongs to the Old Testament, to writers who chronicled earlier 
events and spoke of earlier times, which they occasionally compared 
with present events and times. Moses could well make use of the 
expression, in Deut. xxix. 4; Paul could use it, for he has once em- 
ployed it (2 Cor. iii. 15 ἕως σήμερον), where it is exactly the expression 
which he there needed. But it is difficult to make it probable that 
these words are his in Rom. xi. 8. In this view of the case Reiche 
concurs. 

(9) Kai Δαυΐδ λέγει, David also says ; 1. 6.7 nor are these the only 
passages of Scripture which speak the ee sentiment, or develope 
the same principle. David, your most renowned king, and the most 
favourite of all your sacred poets, also utters seutioneties still more 
severe. 

Γενηθήτω. .«. . αὐτοῖς, let their table be a snare to take them, and an 
occasion of falling, and a recompense to them, ὁ, e., let their season 
of enjoyment and refreshment, when they expect quietude and plea- 
sure, and feel themselves to be safe, prove to bea season of chastise-- 
ment and of danger and of righteous retribution. The quotation is 
from Ps, lxix. 23 (22), but not ad verbum from either the Hebrew 
or the Septuagint. The Hebrew, according to its present vowels, 
runs thus: “ Let their table before them be a snare; yea, a gin to 
those who feel themselves to be secure.” The Septuagint (Ps. lxix. 


480 ROMANS XI. 10. 


22) has ἡ τράπεξα αὐτῶν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν εἰς παγίδα, rai εἰς ἀνταπόδοσιν καὶ εἰς 
σκάνδαλον ; so that the apostle has somewhat changed the order, and 
also exchanged some of the words for others (putting ἀνταπόδομα for 
ἀνταπόδοσιν), and left out ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν. In short, he has plainly made 
a version of his own, in which he has inserted εἰς ϑήραν, an addition 
of his own which seems designed to give the sense of εἰς παγίδα; for 
εἰς ϑήραν means that they may be taken or that they may be destroyed, 
as this would follow their being taken. As to εἰς ἀνταπόδομα (Sept. 
εἰς ἀνταπόδοσιν), it is clear that the apostle and the Seventy read the 
present Hebrew ( D'DION?) with different yowels from those now em- 
ployed, ὦ ¢., they read it Dinibyd or DIDDY, for a recompense. To 
this rendering and pointing no good objection can be made, as the 
Hebrew is clearly capable of it. The present Hebrew conveys a 
different sense. ; 

Εἰς oxdvdcrov, UPD, for anet or gin. But the Seventy have fre- 
quently rendered this word by σκάνδαλον, which means any thing 
whereby another stumbles and falls to his harm. The generic idea 
of U2) is retained in σκάνδαλον. 

(10) Σκοτισϑήτωσαν .. «. σύγκαμνψον, let their eyes be darkened so that 
they cannot see, and their back always be bowed down ; 7. e. let them 
be in a defenceless and helpless state, bowed down with troubles and 
infirmities, and groping in the darkness of affliction. Instead of τὸν 
νῶτον αὐτῶν διαπαντὸς obyxapr~ov(Paul and the Septuagint), the Hebrew 
is TSH WA OID, make thou their loins continually to shake. 
Here again the apostle has taken the passage ad sensum. ‘This ex- 
pression, in Hebrew, designates the tossing of the body hither and 
thither on account of distress. In the like sense is bowing down the 
back always to be taken. It presents the image of one bowed down 
with anguish of spirit or of bodily pain. 

Theserepeated instances show that the apostle was more solicitous 
about the general sense and object of the Old Testament passages 
than he was about the costume or diction of them; a principle which 
he, guided as he was, was not in danger of abusing ; one also which 
may be used to good purpose by us, in sacred criticism, but which 
needs to be very closely watched in order to guard it against abuse. 

As to the general sentiment of this passage from Ps. Ixix. 23, 24, 
it is undoubtedly to be classed with the somewhat numerous passages 
in the Psalms which contain,the like imprecations. Great difficulty 
is found in such passages by many minds, inasmuch as they seem to 
be so opposed to the tenor of those passages in the New Testament 


- ROMANS ΧΙ, 11. 481 


which require us “to love our enemies, to bless those ‘sea curse us, 
to pray for those who despitefully use and persecute us.” If indeed 
these passages in the Psalms are to be viewed as the mere utterance 
of private and personal wishes and feelings, it would be utterly im- 
possible to reconcile them with the spirit of the gospel. But is this 
so? Is David, for example, when he utters such things, to be viewed 
as doing it merely in the way of giving utterance to his own private 
personal wishes? It seems to me not; but David, as king and 
magistrate, might wish the punishment of the seditious and rebel- 


‘lious ; nay, it would be an imperious duty for hiin to punish them. 


Now was it lawful for him-to pray that the same thing might be 
done, which it was his duty to do? Could he not express desires 
of this nature without the spirit of revenge? Cannot we wish the 
robber and the assassin to be apprehended and punished, yea with 

capital punishment, and this without being actuated by a spirit of 
vengeance and a thirst for blood? I trust such wishes are not only 
Sousistont with benevolence, but prompted by it. If so, then it may 
be true that David and other Psalmists had the like views and 
feclings. And if this may be so, is it not probable that it was so? 
Is not the general character and spirit of their writings a pledge for 
this ? 

But I cannot here pursue this subject; which needs more illustra- 
tion than has yet been given to it. It is enough to say, at present, 
that the apostle, in making this quotation, need not be supposed to 
intend any thing more, than to produce an instance from the Psalms 
where the same principle is developed as is contained in the asser- 
tions which he had made; 7. ¢., the ancient Scriptures speak of a part 
of Israel as, blind and deaf, as in deep distress and under heavy pun- 
ishment because of their unbelief and disobedience. What happened 
in ancient times, may take place again; it has in fact happened at 
the present time. 

(11) Λέγω οὖν. . . πέσωσι; L say, then, have they stumbled so as io 
fall down? Language of the objector, who inquires with solicitude, 
whether such passages as Paul has quoted can be meant to designate 
the final casting off of the Jews. Od» refers to what had been said 
in the preceding context. The occasion for the form of the question 
μὴ ἔπταισαν κ. +. A. 18 given by the use of the word σκάνδαλον in the 
quotation above. The design of the objector plainly is, to inquire 
whether the apostle means to hold forth the dectrine, that Israel is 
now to be finally and always cast off on account of their unbelief— 

2H 


482 ROMANS XI. 12, 13. 


“Iva, πέσωσι, 80 that they may fall down, 7. 6., have the Jews stumbled 
so that there is no recovery for them, so that they must fall entirely 
down? ‘The question being asked by μή, implies that he who puts 
it expects an answer in the negative. ! 

Μὴ γένοιτο, not at all; ὃς e., you must not understand me as at all 
maintaining their final and utter rejection and ruin. Fearful as 
their doom is, there are many circumstances respecting it which are 
worthy of the highest consideration. For in fact this very lapse of 
theirs, 2. e., their unbelief and rejection of the gospel, has been the 
direct occasion of its being preached to the Gentiles ; comp. Matt. 
_ xxi. 43. vil. 11, 12. xxi. 1—14.—Ilagarrduari, lapse, offence, stum- 
bling, in a moral sense.—wrngia, the blessings of the gospel, the 
salvation which it proffers. 

Eig τὸ ragagnrdous αὐτούς, to provoke them to jealousy, 1. e., to excite 
the Jews to be jealous on account of the privileges and favours be- 
stowed on the Gentiles through their belief, and to seek after the 
same blessings for themselves, 

(12) Hid: . . . . vay, now if their lapse has been the riches of the 
world, and their degradation the riches of the Gentiles. δὲ “orationi 
continuande inservit.”—IlAvtros κόσμου, if their lapse has been the 
occasion of spiritual riches to the world, i. ¢., of spiritual blessings 
in abundance.—'Hrrajua αὐτῶν, their diminution, 1. e., their degrada- 
tion, rejection, punishment, has occasioned abundance of spiritual 
blessings to the Gentiles. 

Πόσῳ μᾶλλον... .. αὐτῶν, how much more their fulness! Ἰτλήρωμα, 
is here the antithesis of ἥττημα ; and of course it signifies restoration 
to favour, a copiousness of blessings and good things, such as would 
follow a restoration. The sentiment of the whole is: ‘If now the 
degradation and punishment of the Jews for their unbelief has been 
the occasion of rich and numerous blessings to the Gentiles, then 
surely their restoration to favour, their full reception, will redound 
still more to the spiritual riches of the world.’ 

Tholuck understands jrrqjua and πλήρωμα in a moral sense, 7. 6.» 
their depraved and criminal state, and their restored and justified 
state. I prefer the more simple and obvious construction given 
above; comp. verse 15, from which it is plain that ἥττημα here is 
equivalent to ἀποβολή, casting off, and πλήρωμα (the antithesis of irrmua) 
is the same as πρόσληψις, the reception to favour. 

(13) ‘run γὰρ ἔϑνεσι, for I say this to you Gentiles. Tdég makes 
some difficulty here; and it is omitted in A., B., several Codices 


ROMANS ΧΙ. 14, 15. 483 


minusc., Syr., Copt., Damasc., which supply δέ, and thus make the 
sense facile. But γάρ is admissible. ‘The simplest connection of it 
seems to be an implied sentiment, viz., ‘the πλήρωμα of the Jews will 
yet be accomplished,—for I speak to you Gentiles in such a way 
that I may stir up the Jews and contribute to their salvation.’ In 
this case λέγω is connected in sense with εὔπως in verse 14, and the 
intervening matter is considered as in a parenthesis. This is not the 
usual mode of exegesis; but it seems to me the more easy and natu- 
ral one. The apostle is very careful, as is evident from this, while 
he fully represents the unbelief and ἀποβολή of the Jews, not to give 
occasion to boasting or exultation on the part of the Gentiles. 

"EO ὅσον wiv... - δοξάζω, tnasmuch as I am indeed an apostle of 
the Gentiles, I do honour to my office. Mév simplex, as the lexicons 
say, @. 6.7 standing alone, and without δέ or some equivalent particle 
following it as usual. But it is omitted in D. E. F. G. 80. al. 5. 
Clar. Boern., Ambrosiaster ; probably because no 6: follows. Where 
μέν is simplex, as here, it answers to the Latin quidem, equidem, 
videlicet; but oftentimes cannot be rendered at all into English, nor 
conveniently into Latin. It generally stands, in this way, in a clause 
ef explanation, and may be called μέν explicantis ; but it also appears 
_ plainly to have an affirmative and concessive force. The supposition 
of the writer who thus employs it is, that what he says will of course 
be conceded. διακονίαν is the office of the ministry, τ, é., the apostolic 
office of Paul.— Δοξάζω, magni estimo, honoro, honore Hifi: 

(14) Εὐπως . . . ἐξ αὐτῶν, of by any means 1 may excite to jealousy 
some of my kinsmen after the flesh, and save some of them. Eixws, 
st fiert potest, st quad ratione.—Tiy σάρκα, my flesh, i. e., my relatives, 
οἱ συγγενεῖς κατὰ σάρκα, comp. Rom. ix. 3. So the Hebrew “wa often 
means; ¢.g., Gen. xxix. 14. Judg. ix. 2. 2 Sam. v. 1. Gen. xxxvii. 
27. Is. lviii. 7. ‘The meaning of t the apostle in the whole passage is: 
“1 extol the blessings of you Gentiles, not to lift you up with pride, 
but in order to excite the attention of the Jews to the distinguished 
favours which you enjoy, and which they have lost by their un- 
belief,’ | 

(15) Ei γὰρ. . .. ἐκ νεκρῶν; for if the casting away of them be the 
reconciliation of the world, what shall the reception of them be but 
life from the dead? i. e., if the rejection of the Jews on account of 
their unbelief, has been the occasion of reconciling many of the Gen- 
tile world to God, what shall the reception of them back to the divine 

favour be, but as it were a general [spiritual] resurrection? Γάρ 


484 ROMANS ΧΙ. 16. 


marks the resuming of what was dropped at verse 12 for the sake of 
further explanation. So Reiche.—Karadiayq is applied tothe con- 
ciliation of the heathen to God, who by their wicked works had 
before been enemies to him and strangers to the covenant of his 
promise.—Kéowov here, as often, stands for the heathen Gentile world. 
—Ilgéern is is reception to favour, t. e., admission to the family or 
church of Christ. | 

Ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν Some (most of the ancient commentators and some 
recent ones) have understood literally, i. ¢., as indicating the resurrec- 
tion of the body; meaning thereby, that when the Jews should be 
brought into the Christian church as a body, the end of time would 
soon follow. But the time of the reign of Christ on earth, as de- 
scribed in the Apocalypse, and the interval of wickedness that will 
succeed, seem to forbid this exegesis; it has no usus loguendi in its 
favour, for the proper phrase would be ἀνάστασις ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν. It is 
true that we have ζῶντες ἐκ νεκρῶν in Rom. vi. 13; but then it is plainly 
figurative, 7. ¢., it signifies a moral resurrection. I must regard ζωὴ 
ἐκ νεκρῶν, then, as a tropical expression, used in a kind of proverbial 
way, or as a figure of speech designating something great, wonderful, 
surprising, like to what a general resurrection of the dead would be. 
So Turretin: Quid erit admissio eorum, nist guoddam genus resur- 
rectionis ; altogether to the purpose. So the Arabians speak pro- 
verbially of great agitations and changes, as of a resurrection. 'Tho- 
luck has produced several examples, in his commentary on this pas- 
sage. But what is more to the point still is, that in Ezek. xxxvii. 
1—14, we have the moral renovation of the Jews designated at full 
length, by the similitude of a resurrection. It seems altogether pro- 
bable, that the apostle had this passage in his mind; so that ζωὴ ἐκ 
νεκρῶν here is equivalent to saying: ‘ What shall such a σρόσληψις of 
the Jews be, but'a general resurrection of them, such as Ezekiel has 
described, 7. ¢., a great, general, and wonderful conversion of them to 
Christianity !’ 

(16) Εὲ di... . φύραμα, if, moreover, the first fruits were holy, so 
shall the mass be-—Aragy, like the Hebrew W'S}, means the 
jirstling or first-fruits of any kind, which were offered to God. The 
Hebrews called the /irstlings of fruit and grain, in their natural 
state D323 NWSI; the firstlings of grain, &c., in a prepared state, 
monn mvs), But the particular name given to the firstlings of 
dough or kneaded meal, was ΓΙ» NWS, Num. xv. 20, where the 
Septuagint renders, ἀπαρχὴ φυράματος ; which is the same expression 


ROMANS XI. 17. 48 


as occurs in the passage before us, φυράματος being implied after 
ἀπαρχή. The comparison here lies between the small part of the 
mass of dough, which was taken as the Mio NYS) and offered 
up to God, and the greater part or mass of it which was left for the 
use of him who Hsdo the offering. After the NWN) was offered, 
the whole mass became sanctified to lawful use, 1, e., was set apart foe 
this purpose and consecrated to it. In like manner, the apostle would 
here say, is the whole mass of the Jewish nation yet to be set apart 
_ for God and consecrated to him. The ἁ πα ¢ x 4 of this nation, 7. e., 
the ancient patriarchs and fathers. of it (comp. verse 28), were set 
apart for God in a peculiar ‘manner; and consequently the mass of 
their descendants are yet to be consecrated to him. The whole is 
illustration, however, rather than argument. 

Καὶ εἰ. .«. . of κλάδοι, andif the root is holy, so are the branches. 
The same idea is here expressed as in the former clause. <A root 


τς bears some such proportion to the branches of a tree, as the /irst- 


fruits did to the whole mass of bread. So here, the root represents 
the fathers (verse 28), and the κλάδοι their descendants.—The word 
ἅγιος in both cases means consecrated to God, devoted to God, set 
apart for God, or set apart, consecrated, viz. for the service of God. 
But it should be noted, that the apostle does not design to say, that 
the φύραμα and the κλάδοι are holy, 7. ¢., that they were so when he 
was writing. He predicts only that they will be so at some future 
period. 

(17) Eide... . ἐξεκλάσθησαν, but if someof the branches were 
broken off ; 1. e., if now some of the natural descendants of the an- 
cient fathers have been cast off, because of unbelief (verse 20). δέ 
may be construed here as continuative, jam, German nun; but the 
distinctive sense seems to be the more facile one. 

Σὺ δέ. . .«. ἐγένου, ard thou, being a wild olive, wert grafted in 
their stead, and made partaker of the root and fatness of the olive. 
The ἀγριέλαιος, it is said, was often grafted into the fruitful one when 
it began to decay, and thus not only brought forth fruit but caused 
the decaying olive to revive and flourish. This fact is denied by 
Glockler and Reiche, but it is substantiated by Columella (de Re 
Rust. V. 9) and Palladius (de Insit. XIV. 53), and also by several 
modern travellers. According to the usual course of nature among 
us, the fruit will be according to the original nature of the rife 
and not according to the stock. How far this is actually the case 
in respect to Sltvatebh seems not to be yet satisfactorily made out 


480 ROMANS XI. [8---90. 


Be the fact however as it may, it will not change the meaning of 
the apostle’s supposition. ‘The image which he here employs is a 
very vivid one. The Gentiles had been grafted in upon the Jewish 
Church, and had caused this decayed tree to revive and flourish. 

But still the apostle means to hold in check any exultation of the 
Gentiles on account of this, He reminds them, that after all they 
are not the stock but only grafts; that the root and fatness of the * 
good olive had been transferred to them, only because they have 
been grafted into it. ᾿Εν αὐτοῖς seems to be used in a local way, viz. 

an the place of them. 

All this shows, moreover, that in the apostle’s view, there has in 
reality been but one church; the ancient Jewish one being only the 
foundation, the Christian one the superstructure’and completion of 
the building; a sentiment which accords throughout with the repre- 

sentations in the epistle to the Hebrews, where oul a change in rites 
and forms is argued, not a change of the spiritual arid essential 
nature of the church. 

(18) μὴ κατακαυχῶ τῶν κλάδων, exult not over the branches ; ὦ. 6.» 
exult not that the Jewish branches have been broken off, and that 
thou hast been engrafted in their stead. Καταχαυχάομοαι means to 
exult in one’s own advantages or pre-eminence, in such a manner as 
to look down with contempt on others who do not possess them. 

Ei δὲ κατακαυχᾶσαι ... . σέ, but if thou dost exult, thou dost not 
support the root, but the root thee: 1. e., if thou art so inconsiderate 
and wanting in humility as to exult, there is no ground for such 
exultation; for after all, the Jewish church is the stock on which 
the Christian has been engrafted : it is the root from which the tree 
with its branches have sprung ; and as thou art only a branch, thou 
canst not boast as if thou wert the root. 

(19) Ἔρεϊς ody. . . - ἐγκεντρισθῶ, thou wilt say then: The branches 
were broken off, that I might be grafted in: ὦ. e, perhaps thou wilt 
reply: ‘There is at least some ground for exultation, because the 
branches were broken off in order to make room for me to be grafted 
in; which proves that I was considered as of more importance than 
the branches.—kAdéo has the article οἱ in many copies; but A., C., 
E., 3., 7., 37., 46., 47., 54., Chrysostom, and Damascenus omit it ; 
and so Dr. Knapp. If inserted, it would designate the specific 
branches before mentioned ; if omitted, then κλώδοι will designate 
branches, some branches, in an indefinite way. 

(20) καλῶς. . . + ἵστηκας, be it so: they were broken off by reason 


ROMANS ΧΙ, 21. 487 


of unbelief, and thou retainest thy standing by faith: ἃ. e., be it as 
thou hast said, viz., that the branches were broken off so that thou 
mightest be grafted in, yet the original ground or moving cause of 
their being broken off was the unbelief of the Jews; and thou re- 
tainest thy present condition only on the ground of faith or belief in 
Christ. Shouldest thou deny him, as the Jews have done, thou 
wouldest also be broken off in like manner.—Kadés bene, approves 
of the sentiment which had just been uttered in some respect or 
_ other, but it does not necessarily approve of it in the full extent in 
which the speaker himself might have done. Here καλῶς concedes 
that the branches were broken off so that the wild olive might be 
grafted in, ὦ, 6.7 one object in breaking them off was to graft in new 
ones; but it does not concede that the real ground or reason of their 
being broken off, was for the sake merely of grafting in new ones; 
for the sequel shows that ἀπιστία was the ground of this. While the 
apostle concedes thus much, however, to the Gentile, he at the same 
time reminds him, that he retains his present place and standing on 
the very same condition as that on which the Jews held theirs, viz., 
on condition of faith or belief, σὺ δὲ τῇ πίστει ἕστηκας. In regard to | 
ἕστηκας, the Perfect of ἵστημι, it 1s the only tense which has a neuter 
sense, viz., to stand, the other tenses being used actively, viz., to estab- 
lish, constitute, set wp, &c.; and consequently the Perfect is used in 
the sense of all the tenses that are needed to convey the neuter 
sense of the active voice. 

Mj... - φοβοῦ, be not high-minded, but fear ; ἃ, 6.) carry your- 
self not haughtily as it respects the Jews who have been broken 
off; or rather, do not think too. highly of your elevation to favour, 
indulge in no airs of superiority on account of this, but demean 
yourself as a humble believer, and one who has need to be continually 
on his guard, and to fear lest he may fall through unbelief and be 
broken off. 

(21) Ei γὰρ ... . φείσεται, for tf God did not spare the natural 
branches, then [ἔραν] lest he will not spare thee; t. 6., if God did not 
refrain from rejecting the Jews, when they became unbelievers, then 
surely he will not refrain from rejecting thee, in the like circum- 
stances; or in other words, if the natural branches were not spared, — 
how shall those which are not the natural ones find favour? The γάρ 
in this case introduces a cause or reason why the Gentile should fear. 
_—Karé φύσιν means the branthes which naturally belonged to the 
original stock, 7.¢., the Jews, thenatural descendants of the patriarchs 


488 ROMANS XI. 22—24, 


to whom the promises of God were made. Before μήπως the verb 
φοβοῦ is of course to be understood.—Instead of φείσεται some copies 
read φείσηται (Subj.); and after verbs of fearing (for φοβοῦ is here im- 
plied) the Subj. is the usual mood. It is also the usual mood after the 
particle μή. But in cases where it is supposed a thing actually exists 
or will exist, the Indic. mood is employed to indicate this. Here 
evidently the apostle believes that God would not spare Gentile un- 
believers; and so the Indic. is the preferable mood; see N. Test. 
Gramm. ὃ 152. 4. Note 1, 

(22) ᾿Ιδὲ οὖν. . Θεοῦ, behold, then, the kindness and the severity 
of God; %. e., consider, on the one hand, the distinguished kindness 
which God has manifested toward thee who believest; and on the 
other, the strict regard to justice and truth which he exhibits, in the 
punishment of the unbelieving Jews. So the sequel of the verse ; 
ἐπὶ μὲν . .. ἐκκοπήσῃ, severity toward those who have fallen away ; 
but kindness toward thee, provided thou dost maintain a state of in- 
tegrity; otherwise even thou shalt be cut off. ᾿Ἐὰν ἐπιμείνης τῇ χρηστότητι 
may be rendered, if thou dost continue in a state of favour; so Tho- 
luck and others; and so in the translation. But we may attach an 
intransitive sense to χρηστότητι ; for the phrase may be taken as an an- 
tithesis to ἐπιμείνωσι τῇ ἀπιστίῳ in the following verse, so that χρηστότητι 
may here designate the state or qualification of the individual con- 
cerned, and not the goodness of God toward him. That χρηστότης 
may be used to designate probity, uprightness, "PI¥, is plain from 
the Septuagint, Ps. xiii. 1, 3 (xiv. 1, 3). xxxvi. 3. exviii. 66 (cxix. 
66). ‘The former sense, however, is to be preferred. 

(23) The present rejection of the unbelieving Jews is by no means 
final and exclusive. Καὶ ἐκεῖνοι δὲ. . . αὐτούς, and they also, unless 
they persevere in unbelief, shall be grafted in; for God is able again 
to graft them in. ‘That is: § Inasmuch as unbelief was the ground of 
their rejection, so, when they shall abandon this and become be- 
lievers, they will be again received to favour; for God is able to 
bring them back to his favour.’ The apostle means to say, that God 
has not so cast away the Jews as to shut them out of all access to 
the kingdom of heaven, or utterly to reject them; but that he has 
left a way open in which they may return to his favour, and he may 
receive them again. He speaks here only of what can be done; but 
in ver, 24 seq., he speaks of what will be done.—kKa) ἐκεῖνοι δέ, and 
they also; or, if any one prefers, but even they. 

(24) That the Jews will be again received to favour, the apostle 


με 


ROMANS ΧΙ. 25. 489 


now proceeds to show. Ei yag. . . καλλιέλαιον, for if thou wert cut 
off from the wild olive which was naturally wild, and wert grafted in- 
to the good olive which was contrary to thy nature ; 7. e., if thou wert 
introduced into a state of favour with God, from a state of enmity 
which was in all respects foreign to a state of favour.—Iléow μᾶλλον 

. ἐλαίᾳ, how much more shall the natural [branches] be grafted 
into their own olive? Argumentum aminoriad majus; viz., if God 
had mercy on Gentiles, who were out-casts from his favour and stran- 


gers to the covenant of his promise, shall he not have mercy on the 


people whom he has always distinguished as being peculiarly his 
own, by the bestowment of many important privileges and advantages 
upon them? Comp. Rom. ix. 1—5.—The γάρ in this verse intro- 
duces a sentiment co-ordinate with that which follows γάρ in the 
preceding verse. 

(25) The apostle now proceeds more directly to assert the future 
reception of the Jews. οὐ γὰρ... τοῦτο, for L would not have you 
ignorant, brethren, of this mystery. Τάρ confirmantis, t. 6.) prefixed 
to a clause which is designed further to illustrate and confirm the 
assertion in ver. 24, viz., that the Jews would again be grafted in. 
The form of expression, Z would not have you ignorant, is a μείωσις, 
2. 6... a negative form of expression designed to convey a positive idea, 
viz., [am desirous that you should know. Μυστήριον denotes any thing 
which is hidden, concealed, unknown. ‘The fact that the Jews would 
be converted, must have been unknown to human wisdom. It was 
against all appearances and probabilities at that time. 

Ἵνα μὴ ... φρόνιμοι, lest ye should be wise in your own conceit; ἃ. 6.» 
lest you should be puffed up with a view of your own importance 
I am going to tell you more plainly still, that you are not the exclu- 
sive objects of God’s favour. "Or: réguoig... εἰσέλθῃ, that blindness 
has come upon Israel in part, until the fulness of the Gentiles shalt 
come in. As to πῶρωσις, comp. verses 8, 10 above; comp. also 
1 Thess. ii. 15, 16.— Awd μέρους is a qualifying expression to be joined 
with τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ γέγονεν, which saves the proposition from being a uni-- 
versal one; comp. verses 1—5 above. Paul means to say, that 
‘Israel is indeed in part blinded, and will continue to be so, until, 
&c., without designating what proportion of them continues in un- 
belief. It is a softened mode of expression, or (as rhetoricians say) 
per charientismum, 1. 6.. κατὰ χάριν. 

“Axes οὗ, x. τι A The πλήρωμα τῶν ἔϑνων, 1 understand as meaning 
great multitudes or a great multitude, an abundance ; comp. John 


490 ROMANS XI. 96. 


1, 16. Rom. xy. 29. Col. ii. 9. It cannot be denied that στλήρωμα 
sometimes means fuljilling, completion, completing, 1. α..,) πλήρωσις; 8. 5.» 
Rom. xiii. 10, applied to the law; Gal. iv. 4. Eph. ig 10, applied 40 
time. But such a meaning would hardly be a congruous one, in the 
present instance. The fulfilling of a law, or of a limited time, is an 
easy and obvious expression, because there is an obvious limit to 
which the filling up or fudjilling is to extend ; but what is this limit 
In πλήρωμα τῶν vw? As it would be difficult to answer this ques- 
tion, so it seems altogether more facile and congruous, to take 74 

ewe in the sense of copia, an abundance, great numbers, multitudes. 
How great this number or abundance must be, the apostle does not 
say; much less does he say (as some have argued), that all the 
Gentiles must first be converted to Christianity, before the Jews can 
be brought into the pale of the church. Critics are not wanting, 
who strenuously contend for the meaning of totality in this case, and 
who aver that 77ea4«can mean nothing less. So Reiche. But the 
usus loquendi of the word will not support this allegation. The 
subject must therefore remain as Paul has left it, 7. e., indefinite as to 
the extent of Gentile conversions before the time when the Jews will 
return. Of course Christians are not debarred, by this view, from 
hope in labouring and praying for the Jews at the present period, 
although as yet but comparatively a small part of the Gentiles have 
been converted to the Christian faith. It is true, even now, that 
there is a great multitude of Gentile converts. May we not hope 
that the time is near at hand, when there will be a πλήρωμα of them? 

(26) Καὶ οὕτω... σωϑήσεται, and so all Israel shall be saved ; 1. 6.» 
when the σλήρωμα of the Gentiles shall have been joined to the Lord, 
then his ancient covenant people shall also be reclaimed. Καὶ οὕτω 
means and 80, 1. e., when it shall be so that the σλήρωμα of the Gen- 
tiles shall be brought in, then, &c. That καὶ οὕτω, may be used 
substantially in the same way as καὶ τότε (and then), see Acts vii. 8. 
xvil. 33. xx, 11. xxviii. 14---ππᾶς here means all, in opposition to the 
ἀπὸ μέρους of the preceding verse. But whether this means strictly 
every individual, it would be difficult indeed to determine. 

Ἥξει ix... ᾿Ιακχώβ, a deliverer shall come from Zion, and turn 
away ungodliness from Jacob. This is apparently a citation from 
Is. lix. 20. where the Hebrew runs thus: “A deliverer for Zion 
shall come, and for those who forsake ungodliness in Jacob.” The 
Septuagint reads ἕνεχεν Σιών, instead of ἐκ Σιών ; butin other respects 
it conforms to the quotation of the apostle. We can only say of the 


ROMANS XI. 27, 28. 491 


apostle’s quotation, that it gives the general sense of the passage, viz., 
it conveys the idea that deliverance for Zion is to be accomplished, 
and that penitents of the house of Jacob are to be saved. It isa 
very striking instance of free quotation as to the general sense of a 
passage, while the particular costume of it is disregarded. Whether 
Isaiah, in lix. 20, had respect to the salvation of gospel times, has 
been called in question. But the context seems to me very clearly 
to indicate this. And even if he had respect to temporal deliver- 
ance, there can be no difficulty in the apostle’s using his words as 
the vehicle of conveying his own thoughts, with regard to spiritual 
deliverance. 

(27) Καὶ αὕτη . . .. trois and this is my covenant with them. 
This is generally supposed to come from the next succeeding verse 
in Isaiah, viz., lix. 21, as it agrees verbatim with the Septuagint 
there. But here the question stops, according to this supposition, 
~ and the next succeeding clause, ὅταν ἀφέλωμαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν, is 
taken from Is. xxvii. 9, where the words stand in the midst of a 
verse which has relation to the punishment of the Jews, and their 
consequent moral reformation. I should therefore prefer the suppo- 
sition, that the apostle here quotes and abridges, Jer. xxxi. 33, 34 
(the same passage which is quoted at length in Heb. viii. 8—12). 
There the words αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη μου occur in verse 33; and in verse 
34, Jehovah is represented as saying: ἵλεως ἔσομαι ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν, 
καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μνησθῶ ἔτι ; SO that nothing is easier than to 
suppose that the apostle quotes ad sensum these last passages, when 
he says ἀφέλωμα, τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν. There is this advantage also 
in this last supposition, v:z., that the whole passage in Jeremiah 
most evidently refers to a new dispensation, to gospel-times; which 
would be altogether appropriate to the apostle’s purpose, for the very 
point he is labouring to establish, is, that there will be a general 
conversion of the Jews to the Christian religion. 

(28) While the apostle admits that the Jews, the once beloved 
people of God, have now become alienated and his enemies, he still 
maintains that this evil, exceedingly great in itself, has been over- 
ruled for the accomplishment of very important purposes in respect 
to the salvation of the Gentiles. Κατὰ wiv.... ὑμᾶς, in respect to 
the gospel, they have become enemies on your account; ὃ. e, they 
have become ἐχθροὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, have apostatized from him, or have been 
rejected by him, and are no longer treated as his friends. That 
Θεοῦ is implied after ἐχθροί, (and not εὐαγγελίου, nor μού as Theodoret, 


493 ROMANS ΧΙ. 29. 


Luther, Grotius, Cameron, Baumgarten, and others, have supposed), 
is clear, by comparing with ἐχθροί its antithesis ἀγαπητοί; for in 
respect to this latter word, it is clear that Θεοῦ is implied after it. 
It follows, therefore, that the ellipsis to ἐχθροί must be supplied in 
the same way. 

A/ ὑμᾶς, on your account, t. e., to your advantage. In other 
words, the rejection of the gospel by the Jews has been the occasion 
of its being more widely diffused among the Gentiles; so that, in 
this respect, the loss of the Jews has been the gain of the Gentiles. 

Κατὰ δὲ... . πατέρας, but in respect to the election, they are be- 
loved for their fathers’ sake; 1. 6.5 in so far as God chooses men to 
salvation κατὰ τὴν πρόθεσιν αὐτοῦ (vill. 28) and without being moved 
thereto by any merit on their part (xi. 5, 6), he will have special 
regard to the Jews, because of the many and precious promises which 
he made to their fathers. How Tholuck can find here only an elec- 
tion to external privileges, I am unable to see. Is the question, then, 
which the apostle is here discussing, one which concerns the external 
privileges of Christianity merely; or does it go deep to the very 
foundation of the whole, viz., to the spiritual blessings of the gospel ? 
it does seem to me impossible to doubt here what the answer must 
be, unless one is led to do so by other considerations than those of 
simple exegesis. 

The apostle appears plainly to aver, that although God has mercy 
on whom he will have mercy (ix. 18); and although men do not be- 
come the heirs of eternal life by any merits of their own, but merely 
by the good pleasure of his grace (xi. 5, 6); yet in bestowing that 
grace, he may have regard to his promises made in ancient days to 
the distinguished patriarchs of the Jewish nation; he may have 
regard to his original design that the seed of Abraham by faith, and 
the seed which also were lineally descended from him, should be 
“as the stars of heaven for multitude.” That salvation is entirely 
of free grace and not of merit, of course leaves it open for the 
sovereign Lord of all to choose the objects of his mercy where and 
when he pleases. ‘That he always does this with good and adequate 
reason, yea the best of reasons, his own infinite wisdom and goodness 
are a sure and perfect pledge. But that men are always acquainted 
with these reasons, or that he has revealed them, is not asserted, and 
is not capable of being proved. 

(29) God will not disappoint the hopes which he has excited, nor 
violate the promises which he has made. The blessings which he 


ROMANS XI 30, dl. 493 


promised to bestow, and the calling of Abraham’s posterity to be his 
spiritual seed, will surely not fail. ’Awerapéanra .. . Θεοῦ, for the 
gifts and calling of God he will not repent of ; lit. are not the sub- 
jects of repentance. The meaning is, that God will never repent of 
the promises which he made to the fathers, and therefore never 
change his purpose in regard to the bestowment of spiritual blessings 
upon their offspring. The γάρ here introduces the reason why the 
Jews are still ἀγαπητοί. 

Here again Tholuck construes valor of the ezternal calling of 
the Jews; the fear of gratia irresistibilis urging him to the adoption 
of this sentiment. But the reader is desired: merely to turn back and 
compare vill. 283—30 with this whole passage, and also verses 5—7 
above. No other answer need be given to the objection against the 
sense here maintained. Above all, when one compares the sequel, 
verses 30—36, with verses 28, 29, can he constrain himself to be- 
lieve, that external privileges only are here the subject of the 
apostle’s discussion? Could these excite in him such wonder, ad- 
miration, and gratitude, as he evidently expresses in verses 33—36? 
And is this the obtaining of mercy, of which verse 30 speaks? «Let 
every unprejudiced reader examine and judge! 

(30) “Ὥσπερ yee... ἀπειθείῳ, for as you were formerly disobedient 


to God, but have now obtained mercy through their unbelief. This 
refers to the former heathenish and unbelieving state of the .Gen- 


tiles, and to the fact that the gospel was preached to them, and 
they became believers in consequence of the Jews having rejected it, 
in the sense before explained. Γάρ introduces a clause added for the 
sake of confirming the preceding declaration. 

(31) οὕτω xa... ἐλεήθωσι, so they too have now become disobedient 
that they also may obtain mercy through the mercy shown to you. 
Here are two cases presented, parallel in some respects, but differing 
in others. (1) The Jews reject the gospel, and occasion its being 
preached to the Gentiles, who thus become believers. (2) The Gen- 
tiles, by the blessing bestowed on them in consequence of their faith, 
provoke the Jews to jealousy, and occasion their seeking to be re- 
stored to their former place as the people of God; comp. verses 13, 
14. The parallelism consists in this, viz., that each party occasions ” 
the blessings of salvation to come to the other, 7. ¢., each is (ἀφορμετι- 
κῶς) the cause of salvation to the other. The difference is, that the 
Jews give occasion to this by their undelie/, but the Gentiles by their 
belief, which provokes the Jews to jealousy, and leads them to seek 


494 ROMANS XI. 32, 33. 


after the privileges of the gospel. May the time speedily come, when - 
the example of Christians will have a better tendency to excite such 
a jealousy among the Jews than it has ever yet done! 

The position of ἵνα here is somewhat peculiar. We should na- 
turally expect to find it before σῷ ὑμετέρῳ ; but there are examples of 
its standing after the first words that begin a sentence; comp 1 Cor. 
ix. 15. 2 Cor. ii. 4. Gal. ii. 10. 

(32) Συνέκλεισε.. .. ἐλεήσῃ, for God hath included all in unbelief, 
so that he might have mercy on all; i.e, God hath left both Jew 
and Gentile to fall into unbelief or disobedience, in order that the 
- true nature of sin might fully appear, and that he might thus mag-. 
nify the riches of his grace, in pardoning multiplied and aggravated 
transgressions; comp. Rom. v. 20, 21, where‘the same general senti- 
ment is developed. The fathers in speaking of this subject compare 
sin tora fever, which before it reaches a certain height, does not so 
develope itself that the physician applies its appropriate remedy. 
They also compare it to a tree, which is permitted to grow up to 
full height, and to spread forth all its branches and leaves, before it 
is felled. So when sin had reached its acme, the Redeemer appeared 
and struck the mortal blow. ‘The γάρ introduces an additional rea- 
son, to show that God will have mercy on all. | 

In regard to συνέκλεισε, it seems to be the best illustrated by a refer- 
ence ‘to the Hebrew ὙΞ 259, 58 ‘WaDn, > WDM all of which 
(from 73D) mean to deliver over to, to give up to the power of.—The 
whole verse, and also chap. v. 20, 21, seems plainly to teach, that 
God had a special purpose to answer in giving man over to the power 
or dominion of sin and unbelief, viz., to expose the “ exceeding sin- 
fulness of sin,” and to magnify the riches of his pardoning mercy. 

But if any are not satisfied with the sense here given to the word 
συνέκλεισε, and insist that it is to be taken in a more active sense, they 
may compare it with Rom. v. 20, and also with ix. 18. It may be 
understood here in the same sense as σχληρύνει in ix. 18. I see no 
more objection to the one than to the other. But such a sense of 
συνέκλεισε does not seem to be necessary here. 

(33) Here then, to say the least, is some deep and mysterious 
proceeding on the part of God, which the human mind cannot 
fathom, and which it should only wonder at and adore. Ὦ βάθος... 
Θεοῦ, O the boundless riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! 
Πλούτου means riches literally, and here it signifies abundance.— 
Σοφίας, the wisdom of God, viz., the wisdom displayed in thus mak- 


ROMANS ΧΙ. 84. 495 


ing the unbelief of the Jews subservient to the purpose of bringing 
salvation to the Gentiles, in thus educing good out of evil; and also 
in finally bringing the Jews back to their filial relation, through the 
mercy granted to the Gentiles; important ends, which no human 
foresight or wisdom could have accomplished.—Tvaczws, boundless 
knowledge ; for what less than Omniscience could foresee the effects 
to be thus produced, the good effects that would flow from present 
and apparent evil? What human or angelic foresight could divine 
that such consequences would follow from such means ? 

Tholuck refers the whole simply to divine compassion, and says 
that ‘the words are contra deeretum absolutum of Augustine. This 
may be true, if Augustine meant what Tholuck supposes he did— 
fatality. But did he mean this? This excellent critic seems to find 
frequent matter of difficulty in the assertions of Paul here; so 
strongly is he exercised with the fear of the dzcretum absolutum of 
_ Augustine and Calvin. 

‘Os . . . . ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ, how unsearchable are his proceedings, and his 
ways past finding out! Understanding all this as of course having 
a reference to the preceding declarations of the apostle, we must in- 
terpret it as meaning: ‘How entirely above our comprehension, that 
God should accomplish such ends by such means,’ viz. the salvation 
of the Gentiles in such a way, and then that of the Jews !—xgiuare 
seems plainly to mean, like the Hebrew 2Y0, ordinance, arrange- 
ment, proceeding: or rather decision, counsel, determination. Here. 
it is for substance a synonyme with ὁδοί, which evidently has the 
like sense. The word ὁδοί, which literally means way or track that 
one makes in going, gives occasion to the adjunctive ἀνεξεχνίαστοι, 
whose footsteps cannot be traced, ὦ, e., unsearchable, vie non vesti- 
gande. 

What can be plainer, now, than that the declaration in verse 32 
gives the immediate occasion to the exclamation in ver. 33? But if 
this be so, then συνέκλεισε contributes its share to excite the apostle’s 
feelings, as well as ἐλεήσῃ. Tholuck admits only the latter. 

(84) Tis γὰρ . . . ἐγένετο, for who hath known the mind of the Lord, 
or who hath been his counsellor? ΓΡάρ 15 placed here before a clause 
added in order to confirm the assertion, that the ways of God are 
unsearchable. The verse is a quotation from Is. xl. 13, ad sensum, 
and nearly in the words of the Seventy. The object is, to challenge 
the wisdom of created beings ; for the call is made on them to show, 
if there be any such case, wherein any of them has contributed any 


496 ROMANS XI. 35, 36. 


thing to enlighten or to guide the divine counsels. The question 
implies strong negation. 7 

(35) Ἢ τίς. . . . αὐτῷ, or who hath first given him any thing, and 
it will be repaid? ‘The sentiment of this verse may be found in the 
Hebrew of Job xli. ὃ (11), D2Y8) ΠΡ Ὁ, who hath done me 
any service, that I may recompense him. This the apostle has 
changed to the third person, instead of the first, so as to make it 
congruous with the preceding quotation. The Septuagint, “ abit in 
omnia alia” here; so that the apostle (if deed he here quotes at all, 
which seems somewhat doubtful), has given a new version to the 
Hebrew. 

This latter quotation (if it be one) is designed by the apostle to 
have a bearing on all claims to the divine favour, which-can be pre- 
ferred on the score of desert οὐ. οἵ services rendered to God. How 
prone the Jews were to betake themselves to their own merits, and 
to rely on self-righteousness, every reader of the New Testament 
must know. The sentence before us is designed to repress this spirit ; 
for it is as much as strongly to affirm, that no one can make any just 
claims upon God for his favour, as no one by his services has laid 
him under any obligation. The Nominative to ἀνταποδοϑήσεται 18 
αὐτό understood, which would refer to τὶ implied aiter the preceding 
προέδωκε. 

(36) On the contrary, instead of creatures laying God under any 
obligation to them, God is all and in all, ὁ, ¢., he is the source of all 
being and blessing, by him all things come into existence and are 
sustained and governed, and for him, for his glory and honour, they 
“are and were created.”—"Or: 2&. . . πάντα, for of him, and by hin, 
and for him, are all things. —E§ αὐτοῦ, of him, t. e., he is the original 
source, the eternal fountain whence all the streams of existence take 
their rise.—A/ αὐτόν, he is not only the original source, but the inter- 
mediate cause of all things. [Ὁ is the exertion of his power that 
brings them into being, and preserves, directs, and controls them.— 
Eig αὐτόν, fur him, for his honour, praise, glory ; he is the sovereign 
Lord and possessor of all, and all exist because he wills it, and exist 
for the accomplishment of purposes which the Maker of all has in 
view. The sentence seems equivalent to saying; “ God is the be- 
ginning, continuance, and end of all things.” 


ROMANS ΧΙ. 36 497 


Such is the conclusion of the doctrinal part of our epistle; a 
powerful expression of profound wonder, reverence, and adoration, 
in regard to the unsearchable ways of God in his dealings with men; 
and an assertion of the highest intensity, respecting his sovereign 
right to control all things so as to accomplish his own designs, inas- 
much as all spring from him, “live and move and have their being in 
him,” and are for his glory. A doctrine truly humbling to the proud 
and towering hopes and claims of self-justifying men; a stumbling- 

block to haughty Jews, and foolishness to unhumbled Greeks. I 
“scarcely know of any thing in the whole Bible which strikes deeper 
at the root of human pride than vers. 33—36. But what emphasis 
there can be in these, if the apostle is discoursing merely on the 
external privileges of men, and maintaining that these only were be- 
stowed by pure grace, Iam unable to see. Every man on earth has 
merely to open his eyes on things around him, in order to see that 
distinctions of a tempural nature are co-extensive with the human 
race. Dues he need the long argument of the apostle, and the stren- 
uous efforts he has made, in order to be satisfied of this? But when 
we come to the great question: Are distinctions of a spiritual nature 
made, which are eternal in their consequences ; and made too accord- 
ing to the good pleasure of God, without any merit on the part of 
men? it is then we find ourselves to need all the argument and rea- 
soning of the apostle, to bring us submissively to bow, and to con- 
template the whole subject (as he does) with wonder and adoration. 
It is then, that God’s claims to be considered the GREAT ALL 
IN ALL, must be advanced in such a way, that “the loftiness of 
man may be bowed down, and the haughtiness of man laid low, and 
Jehovah alone be exalted.” 

I appeal now to all readers and crities, who, like Tholuck, refer 
all that is said in ver. 33—36 to the mere goodness and compassion of 
God as manifested in the gospel, whether there is any congruity in the 
passage thus considered. Nothing can be more certain, than that vers. 
34—36 do assert, in the most high and unequivocal manner, the in- 
dependence of God on his creatures, and his sovereign power and 
right over them. This will not be questioned. But why such an 
assertion here, at the close of the argumentative part of the epistle, 
the very climax of the whole? Is it necessary to make the deepest 
possible impression of divine independence and sovereign right, in 
order to convince us that God can exercise his goodness and compas- 


sion? I repeat it—I cannot see the congruity of such reasoning or: 
21 


498 ROMANS XI. 36. 


rhetoric. Let those who adopt such exegesis look to this ; 3 mine is 
not the task to defend it. 

On the other hand; if God has, for reasons not disclosed to us, 
and therefore in the way of what we call the exercise of divine sove- 
reignty, rejected for a time the Jewish nation, and brought in the 
Gentiles; andif God, in his own due time, shall also again bring the 
Jewish nation into his church; and all this in such a way as entirely 
exceeds our comprehension, and which of course we are altogether 
unable to explain; then we may exclaim with the wondering apostle 
O the depth! Then we may find overwhelming reason to believe, 
that God is all in all, that he is the beginning, middle, and end of all 
things, and that “for his glory they are and were created.” We can 
sympathize, therefore, while cherishing such views, with all which 
the apostle has here said, and find abundant reason to cherish senti- 
ments such as he has avowed. 

But to prevent all mistake here, I repeat, before I close this sub- 
ject, what I have once and again expressed in the preceding pages, 
viz., that sovereignty in God, does not imply what is arbitrary, nor 
that he does any thing without the best of reasons. It only implies, 
that those reasons are unknown to us. While clouds and darkness 
are truly about him, in respect to our vision, justice and judgment 
are the habitation of his throne forever. It is impossible, even for a 
moment to doubt that this must be so. Infinite wisdom and goodness 
can never act at all without reason, nor without the very best reason. 
God has no possible temptation to act arbitrarily or wrongly ; it can- 
not profit him. His creatures cannot abridge his happiness. Of 
course, it would be the extreme of folly to suppose, that, because God 
acts in a way which is mysterious, he acts in an arbitrary or oppres- 
sive manner. Is he under obligation to disclose all the grounds of 
his proceedings to us? Enough he has disclosed to satisfy us that he 
is wise and good. May there not be something left to exercise our 
filial confidence, and to give us (what does indeed well become us) a 
deep sense of our humble and imperfect condition? Shall we pre- 
scribe to God the terms of our moral discipline? If not, then let us 
be content, when his mysterious ways press upon our minds and we 
feel straitened and in darkness, to say with the apostle: Ὦ βάθος 
πλούτου καὶ σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως Θεοῦ! And if our hearts are ever tempted 
to rise up against the distinctions which God has made, either in a 
temporal or spiritual respect, in the bestowment of his favours, let us 
bow them down to the dust, as well as silence and satisfy them, with 


ROMANS XII. 1. 499 


the humbling, consoling, animating, glorious truth, that “of God, and 
through him, and for him, are all things!” To him, then, be the 


glory for ever and ever! Amen. 


CHAP, ΧΗ]. 1—21. 


THE apostle having thus concluded whatmay be called the doctrinal part of his epistle, now 
proceeds to the hortatory and practical part; which contains precepts both general and partic- 
ular that were specially adapted to those whom he was addressing, and the spirit of which is 
applicable to all times and nations. The very solemn and earnest manner in which he incul- 
cates the practical maxims that follow, shows how deeply he felt the importance of uniting 
Christian doctrine and duty; yea, how necessarily the reception of the former must lead to the 
latter. He begins with urging Christians to make an entire consecration of themselves to God, 
verses 1, 2; he urges upon his readers humility, although they possess the special gifts of the 
Spirit: inasmuch as all the diversities of such gifts are possessed by those who are only parts 
of the spiritual body to which all Christians belong, verses 3—5 ; he enjoins upon each to make 
a wise and diligent improvement of the special gift or office bestowed on him, verses 6—8; and 
then gives, in the remainder of the chapter, a most striking and admirable series of Christian 
precepts ; of which no equal, and no tolerable parallel, can be found in all the writings of the 
heathen world. 


(1) Παρακαλῶ ody... @ecv, . intreat you, then, by the tender 
mercies of (rod, t.¢., such being the case as I have now stated, such 
being theloveand compassion exhibited towardssinners, and such the 
provision made for them, I entreat you on account of the tender 
mercies, &c. Od» has reference to all that precedes, and intimates 
that the writer is making a general deduction from it.— Οὐκτιρμῶν, in 
the plural, is an imitation of the Hebrew ©) which has no 
singular. It means kindness, benignity, compassion, &c. διά, by, on 
account of ; comp. Rom. xv. 30. 1 Cor. i. 10. 2 Cor. x. 1. 

Παραστῆσαι . . . ὑμῶν, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, 
acceptuble to God, which is your rational service. παραστῆσαι 15 com- 
mon in classic Greek, and is employed to designate the action of 
bringing and presenting to the divinity a sacrifice of any kind.—. 
Σώματα ὑμῶν, your bodies, t.e., yourselves. The word σώματα appears 
to be used because it makes the nature of the representation or com- 
parison more appropriate ; for the bodies of animals are offered in 
sacrifice.— Θυσίαν ζῶσαν, a living sacrifice, in distinction from that of 
beasts which were slain. It is put in apposition with the preceding 
Svoiay. ‘The meaning appears to be, that the living active powers of 
their bodies were to be continually offered or devoted to God ; or in 


500 ROMANS XI. 2. 


other words, they were to offer a living, enduring, lasting sacrifice, 
not a sacrifice once for all by self-immolation. But possibly the 
reference may be to the custom of the Levitical law, which forbade 
the offering to God of what was accidentally killed. The animal 
must be brought alive to the altar, and slain there. But I prefer the 
former exegesis. 

᾿Αγίαν, holy, i. e., 2, integer, without blemish, or defect; for no 
other kind of sacrifice could be ἁγία, 7. e., consecrated to God.— Eid- 
ρέστον τῷ Θεῷ is an epexegesis of the preceding ἁγία.---- Τὴν λογικὴν λα- 
τρείαν ὑμῶν, your rational service, viz., your spiritual offering or service, 
or that which is mental or belongs to reason (λόγος), in distinction 
from an external service or λατρεία σαρκική, such as the Jews offered 
and relied on for salvation. I have rendered it rational, τ, e., per- 
taining to the reason or understanding, because the word reasonable 
(as we now use it) does not necessarily convey the same idea. 

(2) Kal μὴ. «. νοὺς ὑμῶν, and be not conformed to this world, but be 
ye transformed by the renewing of your mind. The Codices A., D., 
E., F’., G., and many Codd. minuse. read συσχηματίζεσθαι and μεταμορ- 
φοῦσθαι, in the Infinitive; which would imply παρακαλῶ before them. 
The sense would be the same, in such a case, as the Imperative of 
the text before us makes.—T@ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, the present world, 1. 6.» 
ΠῚΠ Doin, according to the later usage of the word ὈΡῚΨ among’ 
the Jews. The classic sense of aidy, never coincides with this. See 
my Lxegetical Essay on αἰών, αἰώνιος, &e., § 5. By not conforming 
to the world the apostle means, the not adopting of its sinful customs 
and practices, whether of an external or internal nature. 

᾿Αλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε, t. 6.) put onanother form, person; exchange the 
μερφή of the world for that of Christianity. Do this ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοὸς 
ὑμῶν, by the renewing of your mind, t. e., by renovating the νοῦς πωλαιός, 
by exchanging it for a νοῦς καινός such as the gospel inspires. In 
other words: ‘ Cherish no more a spirit devoted to the world and 
sinfully conforming to it; cultivate a new and different spirit, one 
devoted to God, one which will love and practise what is good and 
pleasing to God. 

Eig τὸ δοκιμάζειν. «. τέλειον, that ye may learn what the will of God 
is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. Δοκίμάζω means 
(among other things) ¢o explore, to investigate, to search out, (13; 
and this for the purpose of learning and knowing. The apostle 

“means to say, that a renewed mind is essential to a successful inquiry 
after practical and experimental Christian truth, in its whole extent. 


ROMANS XII, 3. 501 


“ Tf any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether 
it be of God.” 

Τὸ ἀγαθόν % τ. A. 1 regard not as adjectives agreeing with ϑέλημα, 
but as nouns, formed in the usual way, viz., by prefixing the article 
to the neuter gender of the adjective; for τό is of course implied 
before εὐάρεστον and τέλειον. So Flatt and Glockler.—Evdgcoroy means 
acceptable to God, τῷ Θεῷ being implied.—TéA«, that which is want- 
ing in nothing, which has no defect, integrum. Reiche construes 
_ these adjectives as qualifying 3éAyua. The whole verse, therefore, 
is an exhortation to spiritual-mindedness, in order that Christians 
may attain to a full knowledge of what their holy religion de- 
mands. 

(3) Γάρ here stands before specific reasons given for a general 
principle urged in the preceding context. Διὰ τῆς χάριτος by virtue 
of the [apostolic] office of grace bestowed on me; comp. Rom. i. 5. 
xv. 15. Eph. i. 2, 8.— Ἔν ivi, among you; so ἐν frequently means, 
in such a connection. 

Mj. « - φρονεῖ, lit. not to over-estimate himself beyond what he 
ought to estimate. Ἰταρά is often used in such a sense, in comparative 
declarations; 6. g., Luke xui. 2. iii. 13. Rom. xiv. 5. Heb. i. 9.1. 4. 
111. 3.—' AAAw . . . σωφρονεῖν, lit. but to make such an estimation as to act 
soberly, 7. 6... to think modestly, prudently, in a rational way, of him- 
self, not being puffed up with his own attainments and gifts; the 
same as σωφρόνως Qeovet. The paronomasia in ὑπερ. φρονεῖν and σωφρονεῖν 
can hardly escape the reader’s notice. 

‘Exdorwy ὡς . .. πίστεως, according to the measure of faith which 
God hath imparted to him; 7. e., according to the measure of Chris- 
tian belief and knowledge which God has imparted. In other words: 
‘ Let each one estimate his gifts by the principles which the gospel 
has revealed.” But Flatt and Tholuck understand πίστεις here as 
equivalent to χάρισμα, 1. 6.) πίστις == τὸ πεπιστευμένον, quod creditum est, 
donum ; for which I can find no adequate and satisfactory proof or 
example. Nor can I perceive that the meaning which this exegesis 
would give to the passage, is a probable one. The apostle is not 
exhorting men to prize their gifts according to the diverse nature of 
them (which must be his meaning, if Flatt and Tholuck have rightly 
explained him); but he is exhorting all, whatever may be their 
gifts, to demean themselves modestly and humbly. All belong to 
one body, and no invidious distinctions are to be made. Conse- 
quently it is more congruous to explain μέτρον πίστεως as indicating the 


502 ROMANS x11. 4—6. 


measure of Christian belief or faith, ὁ, 6., of Christian knowledge 
which is the object of faith. 

(4) To show that no one has any reason to set up (Sate as supe- 
rior to others, the apostle now introduces the admirable comparison 
of the body of Christ, 7. e., the church, with the human body. There 
are various members of the latter; and they are designed for different 
uses. But all belong to one and the sa:ne body ; and each performs 
its own proper functions for the good of the whole. So ought it to 
be in the Christian church.—MgiZv, use, opus, negotium, office. 

(5) Οὕτως . . . μέλη, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, 
and are each members of others; ἃ, 6.) there is but one church, one 
spiritual body, of which Christ is the head. ΤῸ this we all belong. 
In this respect there is no pre-eminence.— Καθεῖς for καθ᾽ eva, properly 
a solecism; see also John viii. 9. Mark xiv. 19. ὃ Mace. v. 34, and 
ἀνὰ εἷς Rev. xxi. 21. 

(6)"Exevres . . « διάφορα, and possessing gifts which are diverse, 
according to the grace bestowed upon us; ἴ. 6.7) we, Who are many in 
number, and yet one body in Christ, possess gifts which are diverse, 
according to the diversity of the operations of the Spirit, who be- 
stows different gifts on different persons. ”Eyovres agrees with ἡμεῖς 
understood, and is a continuation of the preceding sentence. It is 
plain that here is grammatically an anacoluthon ; for no verb as an 
apodosis regularly follows the participial ἔχοντες κ᾿ τολ, ‘The preceding 
context may supply an apodosis; and this may either be ἀλλήλων μέλη 
ἐσμέν, OY πρᾶξιν ἔχη. 

Eire προφητείαν, whether prophecy, 1. 6.5) εἴτε [ἔχομεν Or ἔχοντες] προφη- 
τείαν, the ellipsis of ἔχομεν or ἔχοντες being quite plain. προφητείαν 
here evidently means χάριν προφητείας, 1. 6.» the office or gift of prophecy, 
the prophetic office; which explanation, moreover, is rendered certain 
by the sequel.—Eire serves to enumerate particular species, which 
belong to the genus χαρίσματα, But is προφητεία a public or a private 
office? And if either, what were its appropriate duties ? 

To answer this question philologically, as well as by the analogy 
of the Scriptures, it is necessary to resort, in the first place, to the 
classic use of the word. προφήτης, among the Greeks, generally 
signified an interpreter of the will of the gods, an interpreter of those 
who were priests of the gods, etc. The essence of the definition is 
the idea of interpreter, one who explains or declares, viz., what was 
before dark, or not understood, or not known. So the Greeks could 
BAY, προφήτης Je0od—isgoim—divrews—Movowy, x. τ΄. dr. Sometimes (but 


ROMANS XII. ᾧ. ' 7} 


more rarely) προφήτης means, one who himself foretells, one who pre- 
dicts, etc.; and it is then equivalent to the Greek μάντις. But in 
general it differs from μάντις, inasmuch as the latter means a person 
who is himself under the divine afflatus in such a manner as to be 
bereaved of his own consciousness and reason, and merely to utter 
(as an instrument) what the inspiring divinity causes him to utter. 
This, which the μάντις himself is not supposed to understand and 
cannot explain, it was the office of the προφήτης to interpret, Plato 
_ derives μάντις from μαίνομαι, to rave, to be out of one’s senses; and this 
~ shows the peculiar meaning of μάντις in distinction from προφήτης, 
which usually designates onky such persons as are in possession of 
their reason. 

Προφήτης in the New Testament, corresponds well with the Hebrew 
833, which means an interpreter of the divine will generally, and 
specially one who by divine inspiration foretells future events. Of 
this latter sense, which all admit, it is unnecessary to give any exam- 
ples ; but as to the former, the reader may consult for 8°33, Judg. vi. 
8. 2 Sam. vii. 2. Ex. vii. 1, where Aaron is said to be a 2 to 
Moses, i. 6.5 the interpreter to the people of the plans and designs of 
Moses Ah Mees Exod. iv. 16. Jer. xv. 19). Deut. xviii. 18. For the 
like sense of σροφήτης in the New Testament, comp. Matt. v.12. x. 
41. xi. 9. xiii. 17. John vii. 52. Acts vii. 48, 52. Rev. x. 7. xi. 10, 
18. xvi. 24, 20. Comp. also the verb σροφητεύω in Rev. x. 11. xi. 3. 
Luke i. 67. Acts ii. 17, 18. xix. 6. xxi. 9. 1 Cor. xi. 4, 5, xiii. 9, 
xiv. 1, 3, 4,5, 24, 31,39; and with these texts compare Joel ii. 28. 
Num. xi. 25, 27. 1 Sam. x. 5, 6, 10—13. xix. 20—24. 

From all these passages it is put beyond a doubt, that to prophesy 
means not merely éo predict (which is rather the predominant signifi- 
cation of the word), but also to preach (as we say), to warn, to 
threaten, to utter devotional sentiment, to utter praise; im short, to 
speak any thing by divine inspiration or afflatus. Πιοφητείαν in our 
text, therefore, does not of course refer to those who predicted ; it 
may have another meaning. More probable is it, indeed it is almost 
certain, that here it has a more general sense, referring to those who 
publicly uttered any thing by special divine aid or inspiration, which 
had respect to the subject of religion. 

Such, then, were προφῆται in the Christian church, 7. ¢., men en- 
dowed with a supernatural gift in regard to addressing the people, 
either for the purposes of instruction or of devotion. The apostle 
directs them to perform the duties of their office κατὰ τὴν ἀνωλυγίαν τῆς 


E04 ROMANS ΧΠ. 7. 


πίστεως, according to the proportion of faith, or according to the ana- 
logy of faith. According to the first method of translating it, the 
sense would be: ‘ Let the prophets speak only as they have faith to 
do it? ὦ 6.9) let them not go beyond the faith imparted to them. 
Faith here may mean that which is the object of their belief, 1. e., 
what is given to them in an extraordinary manner as the object of 
their belief. In such a case, the apostle means to say : ‘ Let not the 
prophets exceed what is entrusted to them. Let them keep within 
the bounds of their reason and consciousness, and not, like the hea- 
then μάντεις, rave, or speak they know not what.’ Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 
32, where the fact is made clear, that Paul considered the prophets 
as conscious, rational, voluntary, accountable agents, while in the 
exercise of their gifts. And as to the solemn and conscientious dis- 
charge of the duty of a prophet, comp. Jer. xxiii. 25—40. Ezek. ii. 
6—8. iii. 17—21. In this manner Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gicu- 
menius, Pelagius, Calvin, Flatt, Tholuck, and many others, have 
understood the phrase under examination. Reiche, however, and 
others, construe ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως as meaning the measure of faith,’ 
ὃ. 6.. the degree or measure of actual belief which the prophet exer- 

cised, or of which he was the subject. 

At the same time, as ἀναλογίαν may signify analogy, agreement 
(for so it means in the classics), the sense may be: ‘ Prophesy in — 
such a manner, that what you say will accord with the doctrine of 
faith, viz., with that which the Scripture contains. The former 
sense is the most congruous here, and therefore the most probable. 

It is obvious, that the elliptical construction reigns through this 
whole paragraph. Here we may understand προφητεύωμεν before κατὰ 
τὴν ἀναλογίαν, or we may fill out the construction thus: πρᾶξιν ἔχῃ προ- 
φητεία. Reiche, however, insists on κατὰ. .. πίστεως being co-ordi- 
nate with κατὰ χάριν x τ. A, and that ἔχοντες 15 implied before it. But 
the comparison of the clause εἴτε προφητείαν x. τ. A. With the succeed- 
ing clauses, εἴτε διακονίαν, ἐν τῇ διακονίᾳ κ΄ τ. A. makes against this con- 
struction. Grammatically it is possible; exegetically, it is quite im- 
probable. 

(7) Eire διακονίαν, i. 6.7 εἴτε [ἔχομεν] διακονίαν. Διάκονος, In a general 
sense, means a servant, a waiter of any one. But as the office of a 
servant is elevated by the station of his master and the duties which 
the servant has to perform, so the word is far from being always em- 
ployed in a degrading sense ; nay, it is sometimes (like the Hebrew 
72¥) used in a most honourable sense, as servant of God, servant of 


ROMANS ΧΙ]. 8. 505 


Christ, servant (minister) of the gospel, etc. In the passage before 
us, διακονία probably refers to the official duty of the διάκονοι in the 
Christian church, to whom was committed the care of alms for the 
poor, of providing for the sick, of preparing conveniences for public 
worship, etc., and generally, of watching over and taking care of the 
external matters of the church. In the primitive age of the church, 
this office was very simple, having reference only to the alms of the 
church. So the verb διωκονέω very often means, to supply one with 
food, to make ready or provide food for any one, 6. g.. Matt. iv. 11. 
Mark i. 13. Luke x. 40. xii. 37. xvii. 8. John xii. 2; comp. Acts vi. 
But in subsequent ages, the office was extended to all the external 
and merely temporal relations of the church. Soin the Jewish syna- 
gogue, the it], inspector, overseer, corresponding to διάκονος. 

Ἔν τῇ διωκονίῳ, 1.€., ὦμέν or ἐστω ; like tv τούτοις ἴσθι, 1 Tim, iv. 15, 
i. 6.) sit totus in illis, let him be wholly devoted to his ministration or 
᾿ service, let him be deeply engaged to perform its duties with fidelity 
and zeal. 

_ Εἴτε ὁ διδάσκων. Tere the construction is varied, although there 
appears to be no special reason for it in the nature of the sentence. 
We should expect εἴτε διδασκαλίαν here, ὁ. ¢., the Accusative case of 
the abstract noun; but in its stead, we have a participial noun in the 
Nominative. Of course the verb 7 or ἐστί is understood here after ὁ 
διδάσκων.---- Ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, t. 6.57 ἔστω as before. 

That the office of teacher is here distiaguished from προφήτης on 
the one hand, and from παρακαλῶν on the other, is plain. But in 
what this distinction consisted, it would be a difficult matter for us 
at the present time to say. In regard to the first distinction, it would 
seem that προφήτης indicated one who taught by inspiration, and only 
so far as inspiration prompted and enabled him to teach. In the 
strict sense of the word, it was an office created and sustained by 
miraculous gift. But διδάσκωλος appears to have been an ordinary 
stated teacher, one who was so by official station, and who taught 
according to the degree of religious knowledge which he possessed. 

(8) Eire ὁ παρακαλῶν, 1. 6.» ὁ raganarav7.—— Ἐν τῇ παρακλήσει, 1. 6.) ἔστω 
as before. But what is παρακαλῶν The verb παραχαλέξω means to 
warn, to console. ἸΙαρακωλῶν, then, would seem to indicate an ea- 
horter, 7. ¢., one who urged to practical duties, who dwelt upon the 
threatenings and promises of the gospel, and so aided and completed 
the work which the διδάσχαλος had begun. 

How long the distinction which is here intimated, was kept up in 


506 ROMANS XI. 8. 


the church, I know not. But in the original settlement of the 
churches in New England, many of them had two ministers, a év- 
δάσκαλος and a παρακαλῶν, as here explained. It was believed, at 
that time, that these distinct offices were intended to be perpetual in 
the church. But why consistency would not of course lead to the 
maintenance of all the other offices here named, it would be difficult 
to say. 

Ὃ μεταδιδούς, sc. 7, he who is a distributer, i. ¢., he who distributes 
the charities of the church, or of individuals in it.—’Ev ἁπλότητι; 7. 6.» 
with a simple or single regard to the good of those for whom the 
charity was bestowed, without any selfish or sinister purposes of his 
own. But in what respect ὁ μεταδιδούς differed from the διάκονος above 
mentioned, we are now unable to ascertain with precision. That 
there was a difference, is plain from the manner in which the whole 
of this paragraph is constructed. May it not have been that the 
διώκονος was the general overseer, the collector and provider of alms; 
while the ὁ μεταδιδούς was the actual distributer of them among the 
needy? This seems quite probable, from the nature of the case, 
and from the fact that here are two distinct offices, both of which 
have a relation to the same class of duties. 

The reader should remark, that with ὁ μεταδιδούς the construction 
is again changed, inasmuch as the εἴτε is omitted; so that the strain 
of the sentiment becomes purely hortatory. 

Ὃ προϊστάμενος ἐν σπουδῇ, let him who presides do tt with diligent at- 
tention. A question may indeed be raised here, whether ὁ προϊστάμενος 
means an office in the church, or only a person to whom the care of 
some duty or business is committed. The verb προΐστημι sometimes 
means to attend with care and diligence to any thing, q. d., to stand 
over it, as we say in English. Soin Tit. iii. 8, καλῶν ἐργων προΐστασθαι 
means to be diligent in performing good-works. But as ὁ προϊστάμενος 
stands connected with a series of other words which express some 
official duty, most interpreters have been inclined to construe it here 
as having respect to office. It seems plainly to be used in 1 Thess. v. 
12, to designate one who holds the office of a teacher; and in 1 Tim. 
v. 17, it also seems to designate one who holds the office of ruling or 
governing in the church, as well as teaching. The context of this 
latter passage has indeed been regarded by most commentators, as 
showing that there were some σπροϊστάμενοι who held the double office 
of teacher and governor or ruler in the church, although, as some of 
them suppose, these offices would seem more usually to have been 


ROMANS XII. 9. 507 


separate. In like manner, Justin Martyr speaks of a προεστὼς τῶν 
ἀδελφῶν, who (it appears) is the presbyter of the church, Apolog. I. 
6. 67. 

In 1 Cor. xii. 28, is another account of Paul concerning the 
offices in the church existing at Corinth; from which it appears that 
there were reckoned in that church the following orders of officers 
and gifts : ἀπόστολοι, προφῆται, διδάσκαλοι, δυνάμεις, χαρίσμνατοω ἰαμάτων, 
ἀντιλήψεις, κυβερνήσεις, γένη γλωσσῶν, διερμηνεῦται; quite a different reckon- 
ing from that in our text, and yet the object of it is the very same as 
in Rom. xii. 8, viz., to show Christians that the same Spirit has be- 
stowed gifts and offices of different and various kinds, but that inas- 
much as he is the author of all, and they who possess them all 
belong to one and the same body, so there should be no boasting or 
pride indulged on account of them, but every one who possesses 
them should exercise his own gift in the best manner he can, for the 
- edification of the whole. 

It must be obvious that the χυβερνήσεις mentioned in 1 Cor. xii. 28, 
would seem to accord with the προϊστάμενος in our text; but whether 
it accords. with the same word in 1 Thess. v. 12. 1 Tim. v. 17, 
seems more doubtful. From a comparison of the whole together, it 
appears equally clear that the office itself of a προϊστάμενος, as desig- 
nated here (and in 1 Cor. xii. 28 by κυβερνήσεις), was one of the 
lowest in thechurch. It is ranked the seventh in 1 Cor. xii. 28, and 
the stath in Rom. xii. 8. But in 1 Tim. v. 17 and 1 Thess. ν. 12, 
it is represented as entitled to special honour; yet in both these 
passages it is spoken of as united with the person of a teacher or 
preashen. 

Ὃ ἐλεῶν ἐν ἱλαρύτητι, he who shows compassion, {let him do it] with 
cheerfulness ; comp. 2 Cor. ix. 7. 

For a more extended examination of the passage ὁ weradsdods . 
ἐν ἱλαρότητι, the reader is referred to the Excursvus, where an inter- 
pretation different from that above exhibited is proposed and de- 
fended. 

(9) Ἢ ἀγάπη, ἀνυπόκριτος, let benevolence be sincere. I render ἀγάπη 
benevolence here, because it seems to indicate kind feeling toward 
men in general. The love of the brethren is specified in verse 10. 
The apostle here enjoins on Christians to cherish a sincere and real, 
not merely a pretended and apparent, feeling of kindness toward all 
men. 

᾿Αποστυγοῦντες, t. 6.7. ἔστε, Which would make the Imper.; and this 


508 ROMANS XII. 10, 11. 


the nature of the case evidently demands. So κχολλώμενοι, sc. Zor: 
In the connection in which τὸ πονηρόν and.r@ ἀγαθῷ here stand, the 
meaning is limited to malice and kindness. So πονηρός means, even 
in the classics, malicious, mischicvous ; and ἀγαθός is the cunverse of 
this, kind, benevolent. ‘These two phrases, therefore, are merely an 
epexegesis of ἀγάπη in the preceding clause. 

(10) TH φιλαδελφίῳ εἰς ἀλλήλους φιλόστοργοι, in respect to brotherly 
love, kindly affectionate one toward. another. Τῇ φιλάδελφίῳ, is the 
Dative of relation; 7. e., in connection with adjectives or verbs the 
Dative is used where the question arises, whether or in respect to 
what? which for convenience sake may be called the Dative of re- 
lation. So often in the New Testament ; 6. 4.5 νωϑροὶ ταῖς ἀκοαῖς, Heb. 
v- 113 ἀγνοούμενος τῷ προσώπῳ, Gal. i. 22; so Matt. xi. 29. Heb. xii. 
3. Eph. iv. 18, et seepe alibi. Φιλόστοργοι means affectionate, in such 
a manner as one is toward his own near relative; στοργή means natu- 
ral affection. | 

Τῇ τιμῇ, ἀλλήλους προηγούμενοι, in respect to honour, anticipating each 
other; ἃ. 6.5. let each one, in paying the proper tribute of respect to 
others, strive to anticipate his Christian brother. Προηγέομαι means 
to take the lead, to go before, to set the example. ‘The meaning is, 
that so far from being averse to pay that respect which is due to 
others, each should strive to excel the other in the performance of 
this duty. Christianity, therefore, is so far-from banishing all civi- 
lity and good manners from society, that it enjoins the greatest at- 
tention to this subject. , 

(11) Τῇ σπουδῇ, μὴ ὀκνηροὶ, as to diligence, not remiss. Τῇ σπουδῇ 18 
evidently the same Dative of relation as before. Σπουδῇ here seems 
to be taken in the general sense; and so the passage accords with 
Eccle. ix. 10: “ Whatscever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy 
might.” So the next phrase explains the whole expression, by pre- 
senting the antithesis of it, viz., τῷ πνεύματι ζέοντες, ferventes animo, 
warmly engaged (as we say), fervid, active in serious earnest; com, 
Acts xviii. 25, where the same expression is used to designate the 
fervid spirit of Apollos—Some apply τῷ πνεύματι here to the divine 
Spirit; but I think without any good reason. 

Τῷ Κυρίῳ δουλεύοντες (which Griesbach reads σῷ καίρῳ δουλεύοντες), 18 
supported by the more important testimony of external witnesses, 
Griesbach has rejected it on the ground, that ‘ the leas usual reading 
is to be preferred ;’ a ground which, to say the least, has many slip~ 
pery places. Knapp, Morus, Bengel, and Beza, preserve Κυρίῳ, and 


ee ν νυν. 


ROMANS X11. 12, 13. 509 


I think with good reason. I take the whole expression to mean, 
that all our diligence is to be consecrated to God, to be made subser- 
vient to the cause of Christ. That Κυρίῳ here means the Lord Christ, 
the wsus loquendi of Paul leaves no good room to doubt. Inasmuch 
as δουλεύω governs the Dative, we need not insist here on the Dative 
of relation. But in fact, all of the Datives in this whole paragraph 
are of this nature; so that exactly rendered it would be, as to the 
Lord, obedient or engaged in his service. 

(12) TH ἐλπίδι, χαίροντες, as to hope, joyful ; i. @, rejoicing in the 
blessed hope of glory which the gospel inspires ; and this, amid all 
the troubles and sorrows of life. —T7 ϑλάψει, ὑπομένοντες, as to affliction, 
patiently enduring ; i. 6.5) since you are animated with a joyful hope, 
you may well be called upon to endure the troubles and sorrows of 
life with patience. Bretschneider, not adverting to the fact that all 
the Datives here are those of relation, has noticed that ὑπομένω here 
- governs the Dative, “ quod prorsus insolens est.” Lex. sub. ὑπομένω. 
It is indeed prorsus insolens ; or rather, it is not at all; for ϑλήψει 
is not governed by ὑπομένοντες, and should be separated from it by a 
comma, like the example above, τῇ φιλαδελφίῳ. .. φιλόστοργοι. This 
example of τῇ ϑλέψει, ὑπομένοντες, I may add, sufficiently confirms 
what is said above respecting the Dative of relation in this whole 
paragraph. 

Τῇ προσευχῇ, προσχαρτεροῦντες, as to prayer, be persevering ; 1. ¢., the 
way to maintain a joyful hope, and to be patient under afflictions, is 
to cherish the spirit of prayer and to live near to God. 

(13) Tats .. . κοινωνοῦντες, tn respect to the wants of the saints, be 
sympathetic ; ὁ. 6.0 feel these wants as if they were your own; cherish 
that sympathy which will lead you to sympathize with the sufferings 
of others. With all these particles, ἔστε is implied. While Christi- 
ans were to be kind towards all others, they were to be-specially so 
towards their brethren of the church. Κοινωνέω in classic Greek has 
always an inéransitive sense; and the instances in Gal. vi. 6 and 
Phil. iv. 5 hardly prove that a éransitive sense should be given to it 
in the New Test., viz., communicate, distribute. ‘To be a partaker, 
to share in, is the genuine meaning of the word; and from that we 
need not here depart.—Tiy φιλοξενίαν διώκοντες, readily practising hos- 
pitality. Here the construction is changed, and the Accusative after 
διώκοντες is employed. Comp. 1 Tim. ν. 10. Heb. xiii. 2. 1 Pet. iv. 9. 
3 John verses 5—8. Ina particular manner was this virtue neces- 
sary in the primitive times, when Christian teachers had no regular 


510 ROMANS xi. 14—16. 


support, and when the missionaries of the cross were labouring to 
diffuse the knowledge of salvation. 

(14) Ebdoysire . . . . καταρᾶσθε, bless those who persecute you, bless 
and curse not; comp. Matt. v. 44. Luke vi. 28. That is, while your 
persecutors imprecate divine indignation upon you, do you pray that 
blessings may descend upon them. 

(15) Χαίρειν. . . κλαιόντων, rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep 
with those who weep ; ἃ. 6.) sympathize with your fellow Christians 
both in joy and grief; show that you enter with feeling into the con- 
sideration of their joys and sorrows, so as to be glad when they are 
glad, and sorrowful when they are in heaviness: The Infinitive 
χαίρειν, κλαίειν, stands (as frequently in the Greek classics) instead of 
the Imperative. Strictly speaking, d<7is understood in such cases, 
g- dy you must rejoice—weep, &e. . 

(16) Τὸ wird cig ἀλλήλους φρονοῦντες, SC. ἔστε, mutually think the same 
thing, ὦ. e., be agreed in your opinions and views. Whether this re- 
lates to matters that concerned spiritual or temporal affairs, the words 
themselves do not show; but the nature of the case would seem to 
indicate, that the expression is designed to have a general bearing on’ 
ail their concerns and articles of belief. Origen, Theodoret, Chry- 
sostom, and Ambrose, have interpreted the passage as meaning: 
‘ Enter into each other’s circumstances, in order to see how you 
would yourself feel; and so it parallelizes with the preceding expres- 
sion. But the usus loguendi of Paul does not seem to admit of this 
exposition ; comp. 2 Cor. xii. 11. Phil. ii. 2; comp. Rom. xv. 14. 
Eig ἀλλήλους 18 not, indeed, the usual mode of expression in the New 
Testament, but ἐν ἀλλήλοις; comp. Mark ix. 50. John xiii. 35. Rom. 
xv. 5. But the exchange of εἰς with the Accusative for ἐν with the 
Dative, in the New Testament (and indeed elsewhere), is very fre- 
quent. 

Μὴ ra... . συναπαγόμενοι, mind not high things, but be led away 
by humble ones. Such is the literal translation of the words. The 
sentiment is: ‘Shun pride, and cultivate humility. That ἀλλὰ τοῖς 
ταπείνοις, κ᾿. τ. Δ.) is the antithesis of σὰ ὑψηλὰ, x. τ΄. λ., seems to me 
very obvious. Of course I must construe σασπείνοις as being in the 
neuter gender ; for such is evidently the case in regard to ὑψηλά, But 
Koppe, Schleusner, and Stolz, construe σαπείνοις as being of themascu- 
line gender, and represent the sentiment of the phrase to be: ‘Suffer 
yourselves to be led away, viz., to the judgment-seat of magistrates, 
with the despised Christian” Others, viz., Grotius, Limborch, C. 


"ROMANS ΧΙ. 17, 18. 511 


Schmidt, &., construe it thus : ‘ Suffer yourselves to be led away by 
the humble, 7. e., conform to them. ‘This agrees in sentiment with 
the above exposition; but it has the disadvantage of sacrificing the 
direct antithesis of the words ὑψηλά and ταπείνοις.---- Συναπάγομαί is 
commonly used in a bad sense, viz., to suffer one’s self to be led 
away by temptation, &c.; see Gal. ii. 13. 2 Pet. ui. 17. If we 
translate and explain in conformity with this, we must then render 
the phrase : ‘ Be ye led away by low things ;’ a meaning which the 
apostle surely did not intend to convey. We must then resolve 
συναπαγόμενοι into ἃ generic sense; and translate thus: ‘Suffer your- 
selves to be influenced or led away by things that are despised,’ viz., 
by the proud world; in other words, ‘ Readily undertake offices or 
duties that are humble and mean, in the estimation of the proud.’ 
Passow assigns to the word the sense of mitfiihren, which agrees 
with the above exposition. 

~My... ἑαυτοῖς, be not wise in your own conceit; ὁ. 6.0 do not, trust- 
ing in your own superior skill and understanding, refuse to confer 
with others or to hearken to their suggestions; a caution intimately 
connected with the preceding one. 

(17) Mydevl .. . ἀποδιδόντες, not rendering evil for evil ; comp. 1 Pet. 
ii. 9, Matt. v.483—48. This is, no doubt, one of the most difficult 
of all the precepts which the gospel enjoins; I mean, one which most 
thwarts our natural inclinations and desires. The natural-man 
receiveth not the things of the Spirit.”—Mgovoobuevor . . ἀνθρώπων, seek 
after that which is. good in the sight of all men; 1. ¢., be studiously 
attentive to those duties, which are commended by all, and which 
all therefore admit to be of the highest obligation. The expression 
seems to be taken, with some abridgment, from Prov. iii. 4, καὶ 
τρονοοῦ καλὰ ἐνώπιον Κυρίου καὶ ἀνδρώπων. 

(18) Εἰ δύνατον . .. εἰρηνεύοντες, 17 it be possible, so far as you are 
able, be at peace with all men. The limitations εὐ δύνωτον and τὸ ἐξ 
ὑμῶν, Show that the apostle did not deem this possible in all cases; 
and beyond ali question it isnot. The world hate the truths of the 
gospel, and will be at enmity with those who boldly and faithfully 
urge them on their consciences. Apostles and martyrs did thus urge 
them; and their sufferings prove the truth of what has now been 
alleged.—To ἐξ ὑμῶν, 1. @., κατὰ τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν. ᾿Ἐξ is used here in the 
sense of belonging to. The whole phrase means, ‘in proportion to 
that which belongs to you,’ z.¢., according to your ability; like the 
French votre possible. 


δ18 ROMANS XII. 19. 


(19) Μὴ ἑαυτοὺς. . . . ὀργῇ, avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give 
place to [divine] indignation. Such is one method of interpreting 
this clause. Asdévas τόπον means to allow, to give place to (as we say 
in English). So Eph. iv. 22, μὴ δίδοτε τόπον τῷ διαβόλῳ, give no place 
to the devil; and Luke xiv. 9, Δὸς τουτῷ τόπον, resign your place to 
this person, or make room for him. Josephus (Antigq. xvi. ii. ὃ 6) 
Says: τῷ ἐνδοιασμῷ τόπον διδόνωι, to gwe place to doubt; Plutarch says: 
Oe? δὲ μήτε παίζοντας αὐτῇ [ὀργῇ] διδόναι τόπον, we must, without jesting, 
give place to it [anger], De Ira cohibenda, chap. 14; and Marcus 
Antoninus says: χώραν διδόναι ὀδυρμοῖς, to give place to weeping, Lib. 
iii. 6. The meaning above given to δότε τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ, thus according 
with the frequent sense of the phrase δοῦναι τόπον, seems to be favoured 
by the quotation which immediately follows: ᾽Εμοΐ x +,a. This 
quotation would be wholly inapposite, if we suppose that ὀργῇ here 
means the wrath of our enemy, and δότε τόπον, to mean go out of the 
way of, get out of the way of, &c., as Pelagius, Ambrose, Basil, 
Scheettgen, Ammon, and others have done. In Rabbinic Hebrew, 
it is true indeed, that DiPP 102 (give place) means to go out of the 
way of ; but we need not resort to Hebrew idiom here. 

Another method of interpreting ὀργῇ is, to assign to it the meaning 
of one’s own indignation, and then to construe δότε τόπον as meaning 
spatium date, i. e., put off, defer. The sense of this would be good; 
and Wisd. xii. 20 would help to justify the usus loguendi. So also 
Livy (viii. 82) says: Ire sue spatium....daret. So Seneca: Ira 
surda est et amens, dabimus illi spatium (de Iva, ili. 39); also Lac- 
tantius: Dedisset irze sue spatium (de Ira, 18). Construed in this 
way the passage would mean: ‘ Put off the execution of that to 
which your indignation would prompt, or defer the execution of your 
anger; for God will repay evil to your enemy in case he has done 
wrong. Retribution belongs rather to him than to you.’ This sense, 
on the whole, seems to be better supported than the other above 
given. Nor is there any want of congruity with what follows, such 
as would be an objection against this exegesis here. 

Ἔμοΐ. . . Κύριος, retribution is mine, I will make it, saith the Lord ; 
or vengeance is mine, I wiil render it, saith the Lord. The passage 
is taken from Deut. xxxii. 35, nbvix Ὁ) ὦ Λέγει Κύριος are the apo- 
stle’s own words, for they are not in the Hebrew. The meaning is: 
‘God will render righteous judgment or retribution for acts of 
wickedness; Christians are not to claim for themselves the doing of 
that which it is his sovereign prerogative to do, 


ROMANS ΧΠῚ. 1. δ18 


(20) ᾿Εὰν οἷν. . αὐτόν, of thine enemy hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, 
give him drink.. Food and drink here stand as a part for the whole, 
and signify our obligation to treat an enemy with beneficence or 
kindness. The meaning is: ‘Do good to thine many instead of 
evil; show him kindness, instead of taking revenge.’ 


Τοῦτο yao ... αὐτοῦ, for in so doing, thou Wile heap coals of jive on 
his head. his is quoted from Proy. xxy. 21, 22. In Ps. xviii. 8, 12, 


13, pron, coals of fire, are emblematical of consuming or dietrantlin, 
The Arabians say, he roasted my heart, or he kindled a fire in my 
“heart, to designate the idea of giving or inflicting pain. Soin 4 
Kizra xvi. 54, “Coals of fire shall burn on the head of him who 
denies that he has sinned against God.” There can be no well- 
grounded doubt, then, that pain is meant to be designated by this 
expression. But is it the pain of shame ov contrition for misconduct, 
or that of punishment? More probably the former here ; for so ver. 
21 would almost necessarily lead us to conclude. It is a noble senti- 
ment when thus understood. ‘ Take not revenge,’ says the apostle: 
‘overcome your adversary with kindness and beneficence. These 
will bring him to shame and sorrow for his misconduct.’ 

(21) μὴ wx... τὸ κακόν, be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil 
with good ; 1. 6.7 be not led to the indulgence of a spirit of revenge 
on account of injuries ; but subdue the evil temper which leads to 
the infliction of injury, by beneficence and kindness. 


CHAP. XIII. 1—14. 


AT the time when Paul wrote this epistle, the civil power was every where in the hands of 
heathen men, who were idolaters and polytheists. In Palestine there was, indeed, a partial 
commitment of power to the hands of Jews; but this was principally of an ecclesiastical nature, 
and the Romans uniformly reserved to themselves the right of confirming or reversing any sen- 
tence, which should affect the life or liberty of their subjects. In general the heathen magistracy 
were hostile to Christianity ; although the Roman civil power, as such, had not begun to perse- 
cute Christians when the epistle to the Romans was written, or even to tolerate persecution in 
others. But the civil magistrates of the Romans, who were polytheists and idolaters, could not 
but look with indignation or scorn on those who denied the religio licita of the empire, and who 


2k 


δ14 . ROMANS XIII. 1. 
ω 


without hesitation condemned all religion but their own as false and injurious. There were some 
superstitious men, moreover, among these magistrates; and there were multitudes of superstiti- 
ous priests, who were peculiarly hostile to Christianity, and who urged the common people, and 
magistrates also, to testify their displeasure against it. Gradually this feeling ripened towards 
development ; until at last, under Nero, it burst forth like a voleano, and swept before its fiery 
streams all the disciples of Jesus who were within its reach. 

On the other hand, the Jews, before they were converted to Christianity, looked on their 
masters, the Romans, with such feelings as a sense of oppression and injured dignity and rights 
trampled on always inspire. As the chosen people of God, they considered themselves entitled 
to pre-eminence above the nations of the earth. They looked down with scorn and hatred upon 
the worshippers of stocks and stones, the D‘)3 whom they had been uniformly instructed to ab- 
hor. The idea that the Romans claimed the right to dispose of their persons and property was 
insufferable. They fortified themselves in this opinion, by an appeal to Deut. xvii. 15: “Thou 
shalt in any wise set him king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose; one from among 
thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, who is not 
thy brother.” Willing subjection to the Romans, then, was in their view disobedience to this 
injunction of Moses. Hence nothing but the fear of immediate and summary punishment re- 
strained them, for many years, from rising up against the Roman power in Palestine; and even 
in other countries, where they were numerous, they made no small tumult whenever occasion 
offered. ᾿ : 

When individuals passed over from the Jewish community to that of the Christians, they 
could not, or did not, divest themselves at once of all these feelings and views. Christianity 
introduced them to a new citizenship, new rights, new privileges, new spiritual rulers, new 
fellow-citizens. Could they then have any regard for heathen citizenship? It was natural 
to ask this question; and above all, it was easy to do so, since the heathen magistracy were 
well known to be hostile in their feelings toward Christians, and since Christians were required 
to yield up life rather than to obey the civil magistrate as to some things which God had forbid- 
den. , 

It is easy to see, that while matters stood thus, there was great danger that private Christians, 
instigated by their own particular views of heathen superstitions and by a sense of duty in some 
cases where they were called upon torenounce obedience tothe magistrate, would be exposed to judge 
wrongly, and to go too far in justifying a principle of insubordination to the civil power. Paul 
felt a deep solicitude in regard to this subject, which was evidently encompassed with many 
difficulties. For on the one hand, it was clear that in some cases life itself was to be sacrificed 
rather than to obey the civil power: and the apostle himself was a most eminent pattern of 
high and holy independence, in cases of this nature. On the other, private individuals, with all 
their prejudices and sccrn of heathenism, might greatly abuse the proper liberty of a Christian, 
and extend it to things to which Christianity did not allow them to extend it. 

That there was a disposition to do so among the Christians at Rome, seems evident from the 
tenor of chap. xiii. The cautions here are salutary for the church in all ages; but they were 
peculiarly needed in the age of the apostles. ΓΑ ti : 

J would add only, that the extension of the principles enjoined by chap. xiii. so as to make 
them imply implicit subjection to the magistrates in cases of a moral nature, where he enjoins 
that God has plainly forbidden, would be a gross violation ofthe true principles of Christianity, 
which demands of us in’all such cases, “ to obey God rather than man.” The apostle himself 
was a most eminent example of exception to such a sweeping general principle of civil obedience, 
It is only when magistrates keep within the bounds of moral prescription, that obedience is a 
duty. So long as they do so, it is better for Christians, who live under despotic governments, 
such as the Roman was, to submit even when they suffer oppression, than to revolt and be sedi- 
tious. Under an elective government like our own, it is their duty to assist in displacing wicked 
rulers, and to do this quietly and orderly, in the way which the law has pointed out. But under such 
a government as the Roman, where the citizen has no elective franchise, there is no remedy 

(after appeal to the reason of the magistrate, such as Justin, Tertullian and others made), Lut 
to suffer, in case of oppression, committing our cause to God, and appealing to him to vindicate 
the oppressed. re 


2OMANS Raitt. 1. 515 


Nothing can be plainer, than that the subjection urged in chap. xiii. cannot be extended to 
cases where the commission of a moral evil is demanded. But with the exception of this, the 
principles here enjoined are altogether of such a nature as our holy religion demands. Certainly 
these do not demand, that we should neglect any remedy for evils of a civil nature, which is 
proper. By no means; we are bound to make use of the proper remedy, if in our power, by a 
regard to the public good. But where the government is despotic, and there is no remedy but 
rebellion, and this may be a hazardous and bloody measure, it is better to suffer than to excite 
tumult. So thought Paul, comp. Tit. iii. 1; and so did Peter teach, 1 Pet. ii. 12, 17. But let 
not the advocates of despotic power urge subjection in cases where the gospel will not allow it, 
under cover of the general expressions here used. Every precept of this nature is to be inter- 
preted with a proper regard to the time and circumstances in which it was uttered. What these 
were in the case before us, we have seen. What the example of the apostle and the Saviour 
himself was, we know. We know, too, that Christianity in its very nature is love to God and 
man; that it makes all men a brotherhood; it\places them-on the same ground as to rights and 
privileges ; it pays real deference to moral_worth, and to this only. It acknowledges no right in 
one to oppress another; admits of no “ Jew or Greek, Barbarian or Scythian, bond or free ;”’ for 
it teaches that “ all are one in Christ Jesus.” It teaches true equality of rights, true spiritual 
and civil freedom. It does not, indeed, abolish all distinctions among men; nor does it abolish 
civil governments. Far from this; but then it decides, in its very nature, that all governments, 
and all civil orders and distinctions, should be only for the public good. It admits no divine 
right of one man to be lord over another; it is at open and eternal war with all the mere claims of 
~ birth, and pride, and oppression. The universal good, the equal rights, the peaceful state of man, 
is the object at which it aims; and whatever is incompatible with these, is incompatible with the 
fundamental principles of the great “ law of liberty and love.” 

But all this may be allowed (and contradicted it cannot be with reason), and yet it may be 
true at the same time, that Christians, situated as the Romans were in Paul’s time, are required 
to yield peaceful submission to magistrates, whether Christian or heathen, in all things where the 
command of God does not directly forbid it. What the world ought to be, what it would be if 
all men were Christians indeed, is one thing ; what the world is, and what is the present duty 
of Christians in such circumstances, is another and different thing. 

In a word, the spirit of the precepts in Rom. xiii. is to be regarded as a rule for all ages and 
nations, so long as circumstances shall be like those which then existed. And even when these 
circumstances alter,and magistrates become really Christian, it must then be true in a still more 
eminent degree, that quiet and peaceful obedience in all lawful things will be a duty. 


(1) Πᾶσα . . . - ὑποτασσέσθῶ, let every soul be subject to the supreme 
magistracies. πᾶσα Ψυχή is Hebraism, like vinIDD, every one, each 
one :----ἰ Ὑπερεχούσαις Means pre-eminent, supreme; 1. 6.70 in this case, 
the civil magistracy or power of civil rulers. 

Οὐ γὰρ. -. εἰσίν, for there is no magistracy unless by divine per- 
mission; and the existing [magistrates] are of God’s appointment. 
Γάρ ee before a reason why they should be subject to the civil 
magistracy. The apostle intends to reconcile Christians to the idea 
of civil obedience, on the ground that obeying the magistrate is in 
accordance with the command of God. All magistrates are by his 


516 | ROMANS X11. 2—+4. 


permission; and even when they are oppressive, the Christian is 
bound to regard them (so he should regard other evils), as existing 
by divine permission, and to bow submissive in all cases where direct 
disobedience to God is not demanded by them. Such a view of the 
subject is greatly adapted to satisfy the mind ofa Christian, when he 
feels galled with the yoke of oppression. ‘ The powers that be are 
ordained of God;” and they should be submitted to, therefore, on the 
same ground that we take, when we urge acquiescence in other afflic- 
tive dispensations of an overruling Power. The only exception is 
that above-mentioned. 

(2) "“Qore .. . ἀνθέστηκεν, so that he who resists the magistracy, 
resists the commandment of God. 'The reason of this is, that as God 
has required obedience to the magistrate (in the sense before stated), 
so he who refuses to yield this, is disobedient to the divine com- 
mand. 

Οἱ δὲ . . - λήψονται, and they who resist, shall receive punishment 
for themselves. Κρῆμα is often used in the sense of punishment ; 
6. 5... Rom. ii. 8. 1 Cor. xi. 29. Gal. v. 10. 1 Tim. v. 12, et alibi.— 
᾿Ἑαυτοῖς, is here the Dativus incommodi, as the grammarians say : 
see N. Test. Grammar, ὃ 104. 2. Note 1. The meaning is, that those 
who are seditious, ἢ, ¢., make resistance against the civil government, 
will be brought to punishment, and that deservedly. 

(3) οἱ vag... κακῶν, for rulers are not a terror to good works, 
but to evil. ‘This clause shows what sort of rulers Paul expected 
Christians to obey, and how far obedience was a duty, viz., such 
rulers as protect the good, and repress the evil; and while they do 
this, there can be no question as to the duty of obeying them. But 
suppose the reverse, 7. ¢., suppose that they protect evil-doing and 
forbid good works, then Paul’s own conduct shows what other Chris- 
tians ought to 4ο.--Φόβος here is abstract for concrete, t. 6.7) φόβος for 
φοβεροί. 

Θέλεις δὲ. .« « - ἐξουσίαν; and wilt thou not fear the magistracy ? 
That is, since the ruler is terrible to evyil-doers, wilt thou not be 
afraid to do evil?—T) ἀγαθόν... αὐτῆς, do good, and thou shalt 
have praise for it, i. e., yield obedience to the civil power, and you 
shall obtain from it the commendation of being a peaceful and obe- 
dient citizen. 

(4) Θεοῦ γὰρ . . . ἀγαθόν, for it is an instrument in the hands of 
God, to promote thy good. ‘That is, civil government is of divine 
appointment, and it is designed to be an instrument of good to those 


ROMANS ΧΗ]. 5, 6 517 


who do well. Σοὶ εἰς τὸ ἀγαθόν, for thy good, where coi is the Dativus 
commodi. The γάρ stands before a reason or ground why they might 
expect ἔπαινος for doing well. 

Ἐὰν δὲ... φοβοῦ, but if thou doest evil, fear; ἢ. e., if thou art 

refractory and disobedient to the civil magistracy, thou hast reason . 
to fear the consequences.— Od yae.. . πράσσοντι, for he beareth the sword 
not in vain; but heis Gods minister, punishing the evil-doer. The 
sword is here the emblem of punishment. Θεοῦ διάκονος, a minister or 
instrument of God’s appointment, or one whom his providence has 
‘raised up or permitted to exist» "Exd:mog εἰς ὀργήν, exercens judicium 
ad panam, judging, condemning to punishment.—T® πράσσοντι, the 
Dative of “ the person to or for whom any thing is, or is done.” 
- (5) Aide... συνείδησιν, therefore we ought to yield subjection, not 
because of indignation only, but also for conscience’ sake; 2. 6.) we 
should do our duty not merely in order to shun the evils of a differ- 
ent course, but we ought to do it from a conscientious regard to the 
obligation under which we are. 

(6) Διὰ τοῦτο. . .. τελεῖτε, on this very account also pay tribute 
Διὰ τοῦτο, t. é., for the sake of conscience, as well as to avoid civil 
penalties. Ide tllustrantis, standing in a clause added for the sake 
of further illustrating and confirming the subject under consideration. 
It is difficult to make out a proper causal meaning for γάρ in this 
case ; because διὼ τοῦτο itself designates such a meaning. Why may 
we not consider διὰ τοῦτο yée us an intensive causal formula, not un- 
like ἐπειδήπερ, &c.? Ihave so rendered it, viz., on this very account. 
Kai, also, denoting not only an additional circumstance, but also be- 
ing affirmative, καὶ φόρους τελεῖτε, ye should also pay tribute, or ye 
should pay tribute as well as yield obedience in other things. TsA¢7re 
I take as in the Imperative. 

Aciroupyol . . . προσκαρτεροῦντες, for they are ministers of God, who 
attend to this matter ; i.e, they are God’s ministers or instruments, 
in the same sense as the magistracy above mentioned. God who has 
ordained that there should be a civil magistracy, has also ordained, 
as a means of supporting it, that there should be tribute, custom, 
taxes. Let the Christian pay these cheerfully; and even when they 
are oppressive, let him submit on the same ground as he does to other 
evils, ὁ, ¢., until a proper and lawful remedy for the oppression can 
be found. Προσκαρτεροῦντες indicates habitualand persevering attention 
to any thing; as much as to say, Whose proper official business it is 
to attend to this matter. | 


518 ROMANS XIIl. 7, 8. 


(7) ᾿Απέδοτε x. τ. λ., render to all men what is due, on the ground 
and spirit of such precepts.—égov means properly a taz, either on 
persons or on land; or rather, in the present case, both of these 
together. Τέλος answers to our present term custom, 7. e., a tax on 
goods, wares, merchandize, &c. In respect to φόβον, comp. verse 4 
above. The meaning of the apostle is, that we should stand in awe 
of those who wear the sword of civil justice, viz., that we should fear 
them in such a sense as to deter us from sedition and civil disobe- 
dience. Tyuj commonly means the respect which one pays to his 
equals in rank. But here it means the respect to be paid to the 
magistracy; comp. 1 Pet. ii. 17. τὸν βασιλέα τιμᾶτε. The construction 
σῷ τὸν φόρον is elliptical. If we may supply it from the sense of the 
context it would seem to be: τῷ τὸν φόρον [ δεῖ ἀπαιτεῖν], or some equi- 
valent expression; and so of τῷ τὸ τέλος. 

(8) From these precepts with respect to magistrates, and the ren- 
dering to them of what is due on the ground of our civil obligations, 
the apostle makes an easy transition to our duty in general with 
respect to the subjects.of debts, Μηδενὶ.. ἀγαπᾷν, owe no man any 
thing, except to love one another; ἢ, e., scrupulously pay off all debts 
of whatever nature, and to whomsoever they may be due; except, as 
I may say, the debt of love, which is such that it can never be paid 
in the discharge of it. An animated and very expressive description 
of the extent to which the obligation of benevolence reaches! A debt 
of this nature is not like a pecuniary one, which, by the payment of 
a certain sum, is fully and finally extinguished. The debt of love is 
only renewed by payments ever so ample. In its own nature it is 
inextinguishable; for, as Augustine says: Nec cum redditur amitti- 
tur, sed potius reddendo multiplicatur; Ep. 62, ad Celest. But some 
commentators take ég¢/Aerzin the Indic. and construe the phrase thus: 
‘Ye have no debt but that of love, ete.;’ ὦ. 6.,9 true benevolence will 
lead you to a proper discharge of all your relative duties. I do not 
think this sense to be so striking as the other. 

'O γὰρ ἀγαπῶν. . . πεπλήρωκε, for he who loves another, fulfils the 
law. Τάρ illustrantis, 7, e., it stands here in a clause designed to show 
that the debt of love is one which is always due. But how does the 
apostle intend to illustrate this? The answer is, by showing that 
the law of God demands love to our neighbour, and this is admitted 
to be of perpetual obligation; consequently the duty which it de 
mands, must also be perpetual, 


ROMANS X11. 9, 10. 519 


(9) He proceeds to show, that the sum of the moral law is con- 
tained in the precept to love our neighbour. 

Τὸ γάρ introduces the proof, from the law, of the position which 
he had just laid down. Γάρ therefore is prefixed here to a clause 
illustrative of the one which immediately precedes; as it stands in 
the preceding clause, because it is illustrative of another which goes 
before it. The τό here is the article prefixed before a quotation or 
citation, introduced as such; comp. Luke ix. 46, τὸ, ris ἂν εἴη μείζων 
αὐτῶν: Luke xxii. 2, τὸ, πῶς ἂν ἕλωσιν αὐτόν. See also Acts iv. 21. 
xxii. 80. xxvii. 4, 9. Luke i. 62. 1 Cor. iv. 6. Rom. viii. 26. 1 Thess. 
iv. 1. Mark ix. 23. Gal. iv. 25, τὸ yag” Ayag Σινᾶ ὅρος ἐστί, for the or this 
Hagar means mount Sinai. See N. Test. Gramm. ὃ 93. 9. 

Οὐ μοιχεύσεις zr. All these commands proceed from the law of 
love. By committing any one of the crimes here named, a man sins 
against the good of his neighbour, and therefore against the precept 
which requires him to love his neighbour as himself— Οὐ ψευδομαρτυ- 
ρήσεις, in the common text, is of doubtful authority, or rather it is 
probably adjectitious. It is not important to the general meaning of 
the passage, whether it be inserted or omitted.— Καὶ εἰ τίς is not meant 
to express a doubt whether there be any other commandment, but 
only to say; ‘ Whatever other commandment there may be,’ viz., 
whatever command respecting our relative duties. 

Ἔν τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ, in this saying or declaration.— Ev τῷ, viz., ἐν 
σῷ λόγῳ, t. 6.. in the declaration which follows.— Ayamjotis x. τ. Avy 
scems to be quoted from Ley. xix. 18, Ἴ29 Wr AION), thou shalt — 
love thy neighbour as thyself. In this one sentence the apostle 
affirms the whole essence of the relative moral law to be contain- 
ed; anditisindeed so. Suppose now that every man on earth should 
really and truly and as highly regard his neighbour’s happiness as 
his own; then all injustice, fraud, oppression, and injury of every 
kind, would at once cease, and a universal fulfilment of our obliga- 
tion to others would be the consequence.—IlAjom is itself an 
adverb; but it is here employed as an indeclinable noun in the Acc. 
ease, and having the masc. article before it. So the Grecks frequently 
employed adverbs. The pronoun ἑαυτόν 15 here referred to the second 
person singular. It may designate either the Ist, 2nd, or 3rd per- 
son, by the usage of both classic and N. Test. writers. See Lex. on 
ἑαυτοῦ. 

(10) Ἢ ἀγάπη . . . ἡ ἀγἄπη, love worketh no tll to its neighbour; 
love then ἐδ the fulfilling of the law. That is, he who loves his neigh- 


520 ROMANS xi. 11. 


bour as himself, will designedly do him no harm or injury. Πλήρωμα 
seems here to be of the same meaning as πλήρωσις: and so in Gal. iv. 4. 
Eph.i.10. So Philode Abr. p. 387, πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου; 80 πλήρωσις 
τῶν ἡμέρων, Ezek. vy. 2. Dan. x. 3. The fulfilling of the law is the 
completing what the law demands, the filling up the measure of its 
requisitions. The meaning plainly is, the fulfilling of the law which 
has respect to our relative duties; comp. Gal. v. 14. James ii. 8. 
Matt. xxii. 39, 40.1 Tim. i. 5. What the apostle designs to teach 
is: ‘ Love, such as the law demands, will lead us always to seek our 
neighbour’s good, and so to be always paying the debt of benevo- 
lence, yet never paying it off. 

(11) Καὶ τοῦτο, i. 6.) καὶ τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, do this, viz., all of which he had 
been exhorting them to do. Ka/ τοῦτο is explained by Theodoret as 
meaning, καὶ μάλιστα : which gives the sense very well. 

Εἰδότες τὸν καιρόν, considering the time, or taking cognizance of the 
time, or (taking the participles as causal, which is often the case, New 
Test. Gramm. ὃ 140. 7) since, or because ye know, &c. comp. ἤδειν 
in Acts xxiii. 5. Καιρόν I understand to mean the gospel-time which 
had already come. ‘The apostle considers the commencement of this, 
which had already taken place, as the beginning of a glorious day, 
the dawning of the Sun of righteousness with healing in his beams. 
A state of sin and ignorance is a state of darkness; and out of such a 
state Christians are brought, that they may see the light; comp. Eph. 
vy. 8, 11. John iii. 19—21. 1 Pet. i. 9. 

"Ori dean... ἐπιστεύσαμεν, that it is now time to awake out of sleep, 
for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. ‘That is, 
the commencement of the Christian dispensation, and the beginning 
of light in your own souls, call for corresponding efforts and ac- 
tivity. The image of awaking out of sleep is often used, in order 
to designate the rousing up from a state of comparative inaction, to 
one of strenuous effort; comp. Eph. ν. 14. 1 Cor. xv. 34. 1 Thess. 
v. 6. 

But what is the σωτηρία, which is nearer than when Christians at 
Rome first believed? Tholuck, and most of the late commenta- 
tors in Germany, suppose that the apostle expected the speedy advent 
of Christ upon earth a second time, when the day of glory to the 
church would commence. Accordingly, they represent him as here 
and elsewhere exhorting Christians to be on the alert, constantly ex- 
pecting the approach of such a day. In support of this view, ‘Tho- 
luck appeals to Phil. iv. 5. 1 Thess. v. 2, 6. Rev. xxii. 18. Such views 


ROMANS XITt. 12. 521 


and such a mode of representation seems at present to be widely dif. 
fused in Germany and to be held even by those who are for the most 
part strenuous defenders of the inspiration of the apostles. But how 
the words of the apostles, when thus construed, can be made con- 
sistent with themselves (not to speak of other difficulties arising from 
the consideration that they were inspired), is more than I am able to 
see. The very passage referred to, in the first epistle to the church 
at Thessalonica, was understood by the Thessalonians in the same 
_manner as Tholuck and others understand it; but this interpretation 
was formally and strenuously corrected in 2 Thess. ii. Is it not 
enough that Paul has explained his own words? Who can safely 
venture to give them a meaning different from what he gives?—-Then 
as to Rey. xxii. 12, how is it possible that the writer who had just 
made an end of predicting a long series of events that should happen 
before the day of glory, one of which is to occupy a thousand years, 
can be supposed to have believed that all this was to take place 
during that very generation in which he lived? 

I only add here (for this is not the place to enter into a long dis- 
cussion), that it is incredible that the apostles, if enlightened by su- 
pernatural influence, should not have been taught better than to lead 
the whole Christian church to a vain and falsehope about the appear- 
ance of Christ; which, when frustrated by time and experience, would 
lead of course to general distrust in all their declarations and hopes. 
As the usus loguendi does not demand such an exegesis (see in Flattii 
Opuscula, Diss. de παρουσίῳ Kugiov); as the nature of the apostle’s 
knowledge and mission does not allow it ; and as Paul has expressly 
contradicted it in 2 Thess. 11.; so I cannot admit it here, without 
obtaining different views from those which I am row constrained to 
entertain. 

I must, therefore, refer σωτηρίω to the spiritual salvation which 
believers were to experience, when transferred to the world of ever- 
lasting light and glory. And so construed, the exhortation of Paul 
amounts to this: ‘ Christian brethren, we have been brought out of 
darknessinto marvellous light; let us act ina manner that corresponds 
with our condition. We are hastening to our retribution; every day 
brings us nearer to it; and in prospect of the reward which now 
almost appears in sight, as we approach the goal of human life, let 
us act with renewed effort as duty requires.” So Chrysostom. 

(12) ‘HWE... ἤγγικε, the night is advanced, the day is at hand; 
a repetition of a part of the idea contained in the preceding verse, 


522 ROMANS x11. 13, 14. 


Νύξ is the time of ignorance and darkness in which they had once 
been. The apostle says: ‘This is nearly-gone, ὁ, e., they had now 
come as it were to the confines of eternal day, or of a more perfect 
knowledge of divine things. It behoved them, therefore, to rouse 
up all their energies, and to act in a manner congruous with their 
condition and obligations. 

᾿Αποθώμεθα . . . φωτὺς, let us put away then the works of darkness, 
and put on the armour of light; ἃ, ¢., let us reject such things as we 
were accustomed to do while in a state of darkness; and let us arise 
to combat all our spiritual foes, by girding on the armour of light, 
that is, by living and acting in such a manner as becomes those who 
are the sons of light. 

(13) ως... σεριπατησωμεν, let us walk in a becoming manner, as by 
day ; t. e., let us live as it becomes those who enjoy the light, to 
whom the path of duty is made plain, and on whom the eyes of men 
are fixed in order to watch their demeanour. Let us carefully guard 
against their being able to discern in us any matter of reproach. 

Εν ἡμέρα, I take here to be the Dat. conditionis, i. ¢., to designate 
the circumstance that they have now to act as those who have day- 
light to guide their actions. 

Μὴ κώμοις . . « « ζήλῳ, not in revelling and drunkenness, not in 
chambering and wantonness, not in strife and bitter envy. The apostle 
here mentions some of those sins which were most usually committed 
during the night season. 

(14) ᾿Αλλ᾽ . .. Χριστόν, but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ; ὃ, 6.» 
imitate him, which is the usual sense of the Greek ἐνδύσασθαΐ τινα; or 
perhaps it here means, like the Hebrew via?, to be filled with, and so 
the idea is: Be fiiled with a Christian spirit, abound in it; “let 
Christ dwell in you richly.” —Kai τῆς σαρκὸς ... ἐπιθυμίας, and make 
no provision for the flesh, in respect to its lusts. Tis σαρκὸς πρόνοιαν 
means provision for the sake of the flesh, i.e. in order to gratify its 
lusts, as εἰς ἐπιθυμίας explains it. Such a latitude in regard to the use 
of the Genitive iscommon; see New Test. Gramm. § 99. So Rom, 
Vili. 32, πρόβατα σφαγῆς, sheep destined for the slaughter; comp. Phil. 
i 22. John v. 29. vii. 45, Matt. iv. 15. x. 5, &e. 


ROMANS xiv. 1. 528 


CHAP. XIV. 1—23. 


Tse apostle having given so many precepts for the sake of caution and restraint upon the 
᾿ς Jewish part of the church at Rome (on whom he doubtless had his eye when he was writing 
chap. xiii.), he now turns to the Gentile part, and gives them some salutary cautions with re- 
spect to their demeanour towards their Jewish brethren. The Jews, at this time, cherished a 
deep abhorrence of idolatry ; and every thing which pertained to idol worship they avoided with 
great solicitude. It is no wonder, therefore, that we find among them, even when transplanted 
into the Christian church, men who abstained from all flesh, lest they should eat that which had 
been offered to idols. Itis to be remembered, that (holocausts excepted) only a part of the flesh 
of slain beasts was consumed by fire; the rest was reserved for the priests or the offerer, and 
frequently came to the market for sale. Now a man who ate meats without distinction, that 
had been obtained at the market, might eat that which had been offered to idols. The Jew 
shuddered at this, lest he should be defiled; and the Christian Jew could not at once divest him- 
self of such a feeling. 

Clement of Alexandria and Augustine, however, interpret the chapter before us as having 
reference only to scrupulousness about meat that had actually been offered to idols, and not 
meat in general. But ver. 2 seems to make against this opinion. Accordingly, Chrysostom, 
Origen, Theodoret, Jerome, and most modern commentators suppose, that the scrupulousness in 
question extended to all kinds of meat, or at least to all which was sold in the public markets. 
A comparison of the present chapter with 1 Cor. viii., would seem to afford confirmation of this 
opinion. It would also seem to establish the idea, that the scruples in question (about the eating 
of meat) arose from the circumstance, that meats which had been presented at the temples of 
ido!s, often came into the markets for sale (1 Cor. x. 25—28), and in consequence of this, it was 
so difficult to distinguish lawful meats from unlawful ones, that it was duty rather to forego the 
use of meats, than to incur the danger of eating those which were polluted. 

In regard to this last point, howeyer, no less critics than Koppe and Eichhorn have main- 
tained, that the Christians whom Paul has in view here, were a species of Essenes, such as the 
Greeks called ἀσκῆται, ascetics, t. 6., those who practised peculiar self-denial as to food and driuk, 
and subjected themselves to various penances and mortifications of the flesh, in order that they 
might attain to a more pure aud elevated state of devotion and piety. That a sect of this kind, 
viz., the Essenes, existed among the Jews at this time, is well known from the testimonies of 
Philo and Josephus. But besides the Essenes, there were others among the Jews who prac- 
tised abstinence from meat. Josephus speaks of one Banus who lived in solitude on fruits and 
plants, and with whom he spent three years, living in the like manner. So also he mentions priests, 
who were accused of some slight fault in regard to the Roman government in Judea, and were 
sent to Rome for trial, who lived on figs and nuts, Vita Josephi, §§ 2, 3. There were also, among 
the Greeks, many Pythagoreans of the newly reviving school of this philosopher, who pursued a 
like course of life with regard to food. Similar to those classes of men, in respect to their mode 
of sustenance, are some Christians mentioned by Origen (cont. Celsum, V. 48), who lived in his 
time. Soin Canones Apogtol. (L.), the like class of men is mentioned. 

But although it is} tain that there were classes of men at the time when the apostle wrote, who 
practised the ascetic mode of life which Rom, xiv. contemplates ; yet it does not seem probable 

hat such ascetics as have just been mentioned, were the ones whom the apostle here intends to 
describe. Every cne who reads the history of the aseetics of this class, knows, that in every. 
country where they have made their appearance, they have usually obtained for themselves great 
credit and influence, on the ground of their supposed extraordinary sanctity. As was very 


δ24 ROMANS ΧΙΥ. 1. 


natural, they took to themselves great eredit on this account, and looked down with 
pity or contempt on those, who declined to pursue the course of self-denial which they had 
adopted. Of course we should expect the apostle, if he were here addressing men of this class, 
to attack their pride and vain glory, as he does very strenuously in Col. ii. 21—23. But instead 
of this, we find the ascetic party here to be the one which needs defending. It is the others who 
look down with contempt or disrespect on them, and who are prone to treat them with some de- 
gree of scorn or neglect on account of their weakness or superstition ; and therefore the apostle 
chides the others, and exhorts them to a different demeanour. It is more probable, then, that 
the whole difficulty in question was one which arose from Jewish scruples about meats and drinks 
offered to idols, in which the Jewish Christians believed that they could not partake, except at 
the expense of associating themselves with the worshippers of idols and becoming polluted. 

This is satisfactorily confirmed by ver. 5, which speaks of the distinction that these same per- 
sons made between days, out of respect to the laws of Moses and the customs of the Jews; comp, 
Col. ii. 16. We cannot reasonably doubt, therefore, that the apostle is here speaking of such 
Jewish Christians, as still cherished the feelings and views which they had entertained before 
their conversion, in regard to the distinction of meats and drinks, and the observance of fast and 
feast days. The Gentile part of the church would naturally feel no scruple in respect to such 
matters; and it would not be unnatural for them to look at first with wonder, and afterwards 
with disdain, on the scrupulousness of their Jewish brethren respecting such external ordinances. 
It is easy to see, that the peace of the church would thus become endangered. And in order 
to prevent this, the apostle throws his shield over his brethren in a weaker state of belief, and 
insists upon it that others shall deal very tenderly and affectionately with scruples of such a na- 
ture, and not condemn or despise those who entertained them. This he could insist on with 
the more urgency, because their scruples were of a conscientious and sober nature, and not mere 
whims of superstition. Accordingly, the present chapter gives precepts and principles in regard 
to things of this nature, which must be of great value to the church of Christ, down to the end 
of time ; and on this account, we can aver, in one sense, that we rejoice in the occasion which 
called forth the expression of such views and feelings on the part of Paul. The whole constitu- 
tes a rule of life in regard to weaker Christian brethren, and with regard to food, drink, man- 
ner of living, and observance of fasts and feasts of an extraordinary nature, which is a very im- 
portant guide to scrupulous and tender consciences. 


(1) Tw.... πίστει, him that is weak in his belief ; i. e., him who 
is not yet fully convinced or enlightened in regard to the true extent 
of Christian liberty, which pays no superstitious regard to ordin- 
ances of a mere external and physical nature. The article τῇ here 
may betaken as being equivalent to the pronoun his which is often the 
case elsewhere; or τῇ may be construed as referring to the Chris- 
tian belief or persuasion. Πύστις does not here mean saving faith in an 
appropriate and peculiar sense, but belief or persuasion in the more 
general sense of the term; comp. | Cor. viii. 11, 12.— Προσλαμβάνεσθε, 
receive with kindness, admit to your society or friendship ; so the verb 
προσλαμβάνομαι is used in the New Testament. It rheans literally to 
take to one’s self; and so it is applied to taking a companion, Acts 
xvii. 5; to receiving into one’s house as a guest or a friend, Acts 
xvill. 26. xxviil, 2, Philem. vs. 12, 18. Hence, inasense somewhat 


ROMANS ΧΙΥ. 2. δῦ 


more general, to receive kindly ; comp. Rom. χῖν. 3. xv. 7. Caloy 
objects here against his Lutheran brethren, for employing this text 
to prove that Calvinists should be treated with lenity. He says that 
2 John νυ. 10 is the proper rule to be applied to them ! 

Μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν, not so as to make decisiuns in respect to 
his opinions. διακρίσεις literally signifies distinctions, decisions, dis- 
criminations. The meaning doubts, scruples, needs confirmation, and 
is unnecessary here. The word διωλογισμῶν, means thoughts, opinions, 
_ sentiments. The main difficulty is, to make out the verb that is 
- implied after the μή here. We may repeat προσλαμβάνεσϑε, and then. 
the sense will be: ‘Do not receive him for the sake of making deci- 
sions, or so as to make decisions, of opinions or sentiments,’ viz., 
opinions in respect to the subject mentioned in the sequel. Or we 
may simply supply ἔστω, ἀμ then the meaning will be: ‘ Let not 
this (viz. the reception spoken of) be such as will lead you to sit in 
judgment upon the opinions of those who are weak in the faith, in 
respect to the matter that follows.’ The construction of the verse 
is very obscure. Another exegesis not uncommonis: ‘Do not act in 
such a manner as will have a tendency to promote, rather than allay 
scrupulous thoughts (διακρίσεις διωλογισμῶν) about meats, days, &.’ 
This sense is a good one it could be fairly made out that διωκρίσεις 
means scruples or doubts. As the matter stands, the other sense 
accords best with philology. : 

(2) “Os wiv... ὁ δὲ ἀσθενῶν. At first sight, the reader may mistake 
these formulas for distinctive antithetie pronouns. But they are not 
so. Ὃς μέν would require ὅς δέ in the antithetic part (see in ver. 5) ; 
in the same manner as the pronominal article ὁ μέν requires the anti- 
thetic correspondent to be ὁ δ. But in the verse before us, the 
construction is an anacoluthon ; for it begins with a pronoun and 
verb in the protasis, viz. ὃς μὲν σιστεύει x. τ΄. Δ.) and then instead of 
saying ὃς δὲ doSeve?, Paul makes use of the article and a participle, 
viz. ὁ δὲ ἀσϑενῶν. Here then is a real anacoluthon, 2. ¢., the structure 
with which the sentence is commenced, is not carried on but ex- 
changed for another. The μέν with és has simply a diseretive power 
in respect to ὅς, which is sufficiently marked in our English one. The 
δέ in the next clause is adversative or antithetic as to the sentiment, 
and is to be translated but. 

Ἰάντα agrees with βρώματα understood, comp. verse 15, but βρώμα 
is not confined merely to the sense of meat; it means any thing eat- 
able, any food. Φαγεῖν is the second Aorist here, from the obsolete 


526 ROMANS XtIy. 3, 4. 


φάγω; but it is usually ranged, in the lexicons, under the root ée3/a, 
The circumflex accent shows it to be the 2nd Aorist. 

Ὃ 03... odie, but he who is weak eateth herbs ; 1. 6.5) ὁ ἀσϑενῶν ἐν 
πίστει, comp. ver. 1, he who is scrupulous about distinction of meats, 
&c. refrains from meat sold in the markets lest he should eat that 
which is offered to idols. He prefers to live on vegetables (λάχανα), 
rather than subject himself to this danger. After ἐσθής the word 
μόνον is implied. 

(8) Ὃ ἐσθίων «««. χρινέτω, let not him who eateth, despise him who 
eateth not; nor him who eateth not, condemn him who eateth. Καί 
nor, like the Hebrew Ὁ before a second member of the sentence in 
which the first member has a negative particle. The English con- 
struction demands not .... nor, in order to render the sense of the 
Greek. κρίνειν, in the sense of condemn, is frequent in the New 
Testament; as any of the lexicons will show. The sentiment is: 
‘He who is freed from any scruples about distinction of meats, 
should not exercise an uncharitable and condemning spirit towards 
him who still entertaims such scruples.’ The reason is subjoined : 

Ὃ Θεὸς .. προσελάβετο, for God has accepted him, 1. e., received him 
into his redeemed family, and admitted him to its privileges: comp. 
προσλαμβάνεοϑε in ver. 1.--- Αὐτόν in this case must be generic, as 1 in- 
cludes both him who eateth, and him who eateth not. 

(4). Σὺ cig... οἰκέτην; Who art thou that condemnest the servant of 
another ? That is, such a one as is favourably accepted of God, and 
is his servant and not yours, how can you claim the right of exercis- 
ing severity towards him, in respect to his scruples of conscience? 
Σύ is here properly the Nominative absolute, and applies to any in- 
dividual of either party. It may be construed as Nominative after 
εἶ, but the other construction seems to be the true one. It is like 
the Hebrew 1277 D'DA PN, [as to] God, his way is perfect. 

Τῷ ἰδίῳ... πίπτει, by his own master he standeth or falleth. The 
word στήκει here has afforded no small room for discussion among 
critics. But those who give it the sense of acting uprightly, and 
πίστει the sense of being delinquent, do not seem to me to consult the 
context. The apostle says to those who were freed from scruples 
about fpod: ‘ Brethren, do not be severe in condemning those who 
differ from you in opinion with respect to this point. Yours is 
not the prerogative to judge in this case; it is God who will acquit 
or condemn ; they are accountable only in such a matter. Σρήκω 
is not a classical word, but is formed, by the later Greek, from 


ROMANS XIV. 5. 5297 


the Perfect ἕστηκα, the ὁ being dropped. Its meaning here is, to 
stand fast or firm ina secondary sense, 7. 6.7) to hold good one’s ΕΝ 
at a time of trial, to remain firm and secure. So Psalm 3 i. 5, “The 
ungodly shall not stand in judgment ;” ὁ. 6.» shall not be able to 
remain firm and safe. So the opposite term (πίστει) would also lead 
us to judge. To fall, means, in this case, to be condemned, to be 
insecure, to be subjected to condemnation or punishment; exactly as 
we say in English, of a man on trial for crime and condemned, he 
was cast at the trial, he failed, ἔπεσε. ‘The Dative τῷ ἰδίῳ κυρίῳ, is 
here the Dative of relation ; comip. xii. 10, seq. on this Dative, and 
New Test. Gramm. 106.1. The strict rendering ad sensum would 
be: Jn relation to his own master he is i yect to a sentence of con- 
demnation or acquittal ; 2. e., before the tribunal of another he can- 
not be arraigned in respect to his scrupulous conscience, for it is only 
his own master who can call him to an account as to this matter. 
ο΄ Σταθήσεται . . . αὐτόν, and he shall be established, for God is able to 
establish him; ὦ. e., he shall stand in the judgment of his conduct in 
reference to this matter, for God is able to acquit him, or God has 
the power and right of acquitting him, although you should condemn 
him. 

(5) “Og μὲν . . . ἡμέραν, one esteemeth one day more than another ; 
ἧς 6.7) he makes a distinction between days, regarding one as more 
sacred than another. Kei here has a very different sense from 
that which it conveys in the preceding verse, and is employed in a 
kind of paronomasiac way; it means estimates, regards, deems: 

_comp. Acts xi. 46. xvi. 15. xxvi. 8. Rom. iii. 7. 1 Cor. ἢ. 2. Joseph. 
Antiq. Jud. IV. 8, 2, κριθείητε εὐδαιμονέστατοι, ye shall be deemed most 
fortunate. In respect to σαρά, in the sense of more than, above, see 
lexicon. : 

"Og δὲ . . . ἡμέραν, another esteemeth every day, t.e.. makes no dis- 
tinction between days, regards all days alike. The μέν and δέ joined 
with ὅς in the two clauses, serve merely the purpose of antithetic dis- 
tinction as to the pronouns.—’ Exaoros . . . αληροφορείσθω, let every one 
be fully persuaded in his own mind ; ἢ. e., let each one act conscien- 
tiously in respect to this matter, ἘΡΒΥ ΚΤ to the real persuasion or 
belief of his own mind, so as not to violate his conscience in observ- 
ing, or neglecting to δθροὲν e, particular days in a special manner. 

Whether the apostle means to include the Sabbath, or rather the 
Lord's day, under what he says here of the special observance of 
particular days, has been called in question by not a few distin- 


528 ROMANS.-XIV. 6. 


guished commentators and divines. It is well known, that in the 
early ages of the church a distinction was madebetween Sabbath and 
Lord's day. The former was the Jewish weekly Sabbath, 7. e., the 
seventh day of the week. It embraced also the occasional fasts and 
feasts prescribed by the Mosaic law; comp. Col. ii. 16. Gal. iv. 10. 
Such was the Jewish use of the word NAY, σάββατον. But the early 
Christians, in order to distinguish this from the first day of the week, 
on which they held their religious assemblies of worship (1 Cor. xvi. 
2. Acts xx. 7), called the first day ἡωέρα Κυρίου (Lord’s day), Rev. i. 
10. Of this distinction there is clear evidence in the writings of the 
ecclesiastical fathers. ‘That it was very early made, even in apostolic 
times, is sufficiently eviden##rom comparing Col. ii. 16 and Rev. i. 10. 

The question whether Rom. xiv. 5 has respect to the ἡμέρα Κυρίου 
as well as the σάββατα of the Jews, is more difficult of decision than 
some may at first suppose ; because there is nothing in the context 
which furnishes any certain clue to the meaning of ἡμέρα here. But 
if we may venture to compare Col. 11. 16 and Gal. iv. 10 with the 
passage here (and it does seem to methatthe two passages manifestly 
have relation to the same usages and prejudices in the church), then 
we may draw the conclusion pretty clearly, that ἡμέρα here relates to 
days whichthe scruples of Jewish Christians deemed sacred, and has 
no relation to the ἡμέρα Κυρίου which all agreed to keep holy. 

(6) ‘O φρονῶν . . . οὐ φρονεῖ, he who regards the day, regards it to 
[the honouring of | the Lord; and he who regards not the day for 
[the honouring of |] the Lord, he doth not regard it. That is, he 
who makes the distinction in question between days, does so because 
he believes that God has required it, and he keeps such days sacred — 
in order to honour him ; but he who does not make these distinctions, 
refrains from doing it because he thinks that duty to God requires 
him to refrain, inasmuch as God does not require these days to be 
kept holy. Κυρίῳ is the Dativus commodi. 

‘O μὴ φρονῶν... οὐ Qeve7is omitted in A., B., C., D., Τὰ, Ἐς G.; 
23., 57., 67.; ~Aith., Copt., Vulg., Ital.; Ruf, Ambrosiast., Pel., 
Aug., Hieron. ; and neglected by Erasmus and Mill. Still, the con- 
text seems so to require it, that it isnow generally admitted. 

Καὶ ὁ ἐσθίων... Θεῷ, likewise he who eats, eats [to the honouring 
of | the Lord, for he gives God thanks; 7. e.. he who eats food with- 
out any scrupulous distinctions, does this with a regard to the com- 
mandsof God, and isthankful to God forthe blessings bestowed upon 
him, viz., the privilege of enjoying his food without the troublesome 


ROMANS XIV. 7, 8. 529 


distinction. of clean and unclean. [dg stands before the reason why 
he eats in honour of the Lord. 

Kai ὁ μὴ ἐσθίων, ... Θεῳ, and he who eats not, for [the honouring] of 
the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks. ‘That is, he refrains 
from certain kinds of food, from a design to obey the commands of 
God; and for the light which is imparted to him (as he supposes) 
with respect to making such a distinction in food, he is grateful. 
Flatt thinks this should be turned thus: ‘For the little which 
he does enjoy, he is thankful to God.’ But then this little would 
be what he eats; whereas, he who does not eat, is here represented 
as thankful—for what? The not eating must be the answer; and 
this, in the sense above given. ΐ 

(7) οὐδεὶς γάρ. . . ζῇ for none of us lives tu himself; i. e., none of 
us, who behaves himself as a Christian, can live only for his own 
pleasure, or to obey his own inclinations. The apostle seems here 
to take it for granted, that those who made distinctions between 
food, and those who did not, aimed to honour God by this, because 
they stood pledged to be entirely devoted to his service and glory. 
— Ziv civ to live devoted to any person or thing, to accommodate all 
our actions and desires to his wishes; comp. Luke xx. 38. Rom. vi. 
10, 11. Gal. ii. 19.—The γάρ at the beginning of the verse, intro- 
duces a general reason for what he had just affirmed. 

Kai οὐδεὶς ἑαυτῷ ἀποδνήσκει, and none of us dieth to himself; ἃ. e., in 
life and death we are the Lord’s, we are bound to glorify him in all 
that we do. That the phrase οὐδεὶς ἑαυτῷ ἀποθνήσκει Means, we are 
the Lord’s whether in life or in death, 7. ¢., in the state of the dead, 
viz., in the present and future world, seems clear from comparing 
verses 8, 9. 

(8) ’Edy re... ἀπολνήσκωμεν, for whether we live, we live to the Lord, 
and whether we die, we die to the Lord; 1. e., whether in’a state of 
life or death (comp. v. 9), we belong to the Lord, we are bound to 
glorify him. The γάρ in this case is introductory to a clause illus- 
trating and confirming the preceding declaration.—The phrases ἐάν 
τε .. ἐάν τε show the mutual connection of both, and their relation 
in common to something else; which here is rw κυρίῳ ζῆν or ἀποδνήσκειν 
respectively. The nicer shades of +2... xa, or (as here) 2... τέ, it 
is impossible to imitate in our language. 

"Edy τέ. .. ἐσμέν, whether we live, then, or die, we are the Lords; 
i. é@., whether we exist in the present world, or in another, viz., the 
world of the dead; we belong to the Lord, ὁ. ¢., to Christ. That 

21, 


530 ROMANS XIv. 9, 10. 


Lord does mean Christ here, ver. 9 makes certain. That the apostle 
means, moreover, by ζῶμεν and ἀποϑνήσχωμεν, to describe not the act of 
living and dying, but the state of the living and the dead, there can 
be no reasonable doubt, after consulting verse 9. In other words: 
‘ We, in the state of the living and in the state of the dead, 7. ¢., we 
of the present or of the future world, are Christ’s; he is our Lord, 
both here and hereafter.—And this being the case, all judgment 
must be committed to him. | 

(9) Eig τοῦτο γὰρ... κυριεύσῃ, for Christ both died and revived, for 
the very purpose that he might be Lord of the dead and the living. 
There is much discrepancy of readings here. The first καί before 
ἀπέϑανε is rejected by many uncial and other MSS. and ancient ver- 
sions: also by Griesbach, Lachmann, and Reiche. The word 
ἀνέστη, rose, which is in the textus receptus, and also in some ancient 
MSS., versions, and fathers, is rejected on good grounds by Dr. 
Knapp and all recent critics. It-seems to have come from the mar- 
gin, where it was written as a gloss or explanation of ἔζησε. In re- 
gard to ἔζησε, which here has the sense of reviving, coming to life, 
and not simply of living (which has seemed to perplex some com- 
mentators), one needs for his satisfaction, only to compare Matt. ix. 
18. John v. 25. xi. 25. Acts i. ὃ. xxv. 15, et alibi. In relation to 
the sentiment here expressed, viz., that Christ suffered and rose, or 
in other words, that he “ took on him our nature, and became obe- 
dient unto death,” in order that he might be Lord of all, the reader 
may compare Phil. 11. 5—11. John xvii. 4, 5. Heb. ii. 9, 10. xii. 2. 
The apostle means to say, not that universal dominion was the prin- 
cipal object of Christ’s death, but that this was a fruit or consequence 
of it, and indeed one of the ends which the Saviour had in view, 
because it was necessary for the accomplishment of his benevolent 
purposes.—To be Lord of the dead and of the living, is that he should 
be supreme ruler over the present world and the world of spirits; 
for the living and the dead make up all the buman race.—The supre- 
macy of Christ, and his absolute property in all Christians, living 
or dead, is fully asserted and implied in vers. 6—9. 

(10) Σὺ 6. . . σου; and thou, why dost thou condemn thy brother? 
Σύ is the Nom. absolute, as in verse 4 above. Aé, but in this case; 
for the sentiment is adversative. Τί κρίνεις, why dost thou censure 
thy brother for his weak and scrupulous conscience ? 

Ἢ καὶ od... σου, lit. or even thou, why dost thou despise thy brother? 
Καὶ σύ is emphatic, σύ being in the Nom. absolute as before. Zo 


ROMANS xiv. 11—13. 531 


despise here means to regard with feelings of contempt brethren who 
have scrupulous consciences, to look upon them as inferior. 

Tldvreg γὰρ... Χριστοῦ, for we must all stand before the judgment- 
seat of Christ; i. ¢., such a brother is not amenable to you in ἃ mat- . 
ter of this nature; Christ is his judge, who is the supreme judge of 
all. We must leave such matters to him; but we should feel, at the 
same time, that we are accountable for all that we do or say in re- 
spect to our Christian brethren.—Tde is prefixed to a reason given, 
why we ought not to despise a Christian brother for his weak con- 
~ science, viz., the fact that he is accountable to Christ himself and 
not to us; as we also are accountable for our demeanour toward 
him. 

(11) τέγραπται γάρ, where γάρ is prefixed to a clause introduced in 
order to confirm what immediately precedes.—Z4 tya.... Θεῷ, as I 
live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue 
shall confess to God; 7. ¢., all shall acknowledge subjection to me, 
and give to me an account of their actions ; or, all are accountable 
to God as their supreme and final judge. The passage is quoted 
_ from Is. xlv. 23 (xlv. 23, 24 Sept.), where the Hebrew for 24 ἐγὼ is 
‘Myaws *3, Sept. κατ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω, by myself do I swear. The δῶ 
ἐγώ of the apostle is equivalent to the "38 ‘4 of the Hebrew, which 
is altogether equivalent to ‘PYIW2 "2. So the apostle has translated 
ad sensum, not ad verbum. The ὅτι which follows, stands in the 
Septuagint after κατ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω naturally ; in the text of Paul, δῶ 
ἐγὼ... ort, is a constructio ad sensum. 

(12) ‘That the doctrine of accountability to Ged is contained or 
implied in this passage from the Old Testament, Paul now proceeds 
to assert. "Agu ody... Θεῷ, every one of us, therefore, must give an 
account respecting himself to God. For λόγος, in the sense here 
given, comp. Matt. xii. 36. Acts xix. 40. 1 Pet. iv. 5. Heb. xiii. 17. 
iv. 13. 

The apostle here reckons the appearing before the judgment-seat 
of Christ, as giving an account to God. So God is represented as 
judging the world by Christ, Acts xvii. 31. Rom. ii. 16. “Deus et 
Christus arctissime conjuncti sunt, ita ut quod dehoc dicitur, dicitur 
etiam de illo.” 

(13) μήκετι.. κρίνωμεν, let us then no longer judge one another ; t. 6.» 
let us no longer do as we have done, in judging and condemning 
those who make a distinction of meats, days, &c. Since we are all 
accountable to God for every thing that we do, let us no more 


532 ROMANS xiv. 14, 15. 


expose ourselves to his displeasure by thus wronging a Christian 
brother. ; 

᾿Αλλὰ τοῦτο. . . σκάνδαλον, but rather come to this determination, 
not to put « stumbling-block, or an occasion of falling in the way of 
ὦ brother. Κρίνατε is here taken in a sense quite different from that 
which χρίνωμεν conveys in the preceding clause. Kegivars here means 
determine, decide ;. κρίνατε τοῦτο means, make or come to this determi- 
nation; comp. Acts xvi. 15. xx. 16. 1 Cor. vii. 37. et alibi. The 
employment of the word again in this case, is occasioned by a kind 
of παρονομασία which is so frequent in the writings of Paul. It is ap- 
propriately what the rhetoricians call antanaclasis (dvravéxdaois), 
which means the repetition of the same word in the same sentence, 
or in one closely connected, in a sense different from that which the 
word when first mentioned conveyed. 

Tw ἀδελφῳ is Dativus incommodi, as the grammarians say: πρόσ- 
noua and oxévdarov are not materially different ; both mean an occa- 
sion or cause of stumbling. Uere they are to be understood, of 
course, in a moral sense; and the use of both words seems designed 
merely to indicate every kind of occasion for stumbling. 

(14) Of6a.. . ᾿Ιησοῦ, 7 know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus ; 
i. c., I know, aid know for certainty because the Lord Jesus himself 
has tauoht me. Ἔν xugiw, by the Lord, for so ἐν may be construed 
before the Dative of cause or agent. Or it may be construed as 
designating Paul’s relation to the Lord, ἡ, e., J, being in the Lord, am 
persuaded, &c. The last is the more analogical meaning. 

"Or. . αὑτοῦ, that nothing is unclean of itself ; ; ὦ, δι) no food or 
drink in its own nature, or as it is in itself, is unclean to the Chris- 
tian. Δι’ αὑτοῦ, by itself, through itself, en tts own account. For 
αὑτοῦ, Lachmann reads αὐτοῦ The exchange of these words for each 
other in the New Test., is very frequent ; and the confusion is in- 
ereased much by the negligence of collators as to making the requi- 
site distinction.— Ei 47... κοινόν, but to him who deemeth any thing 
to be unelean, it is unclean; i. ¢., if a man believes any species of 
food or drink to be unlawful, and then partakes of it, he defiles him- 
self, because he does that which he believes to be sinful. 

(15) Ei δὲ... λυπεῖται, now if thy brother is grieved because of 
meat, ΔΈ continuative, now; but the sense seems to require γάρ, 
and there is no doubt that δέ in some cases is employed so that it is 
equivalent to γάρ ; see Passow’s Lex. δέ.---- Διὰ βρῶμα, because thou 
eatest meat which he regards as unclean.—Oidzér: . . . περιπατεῖς, thou. 


ROMANS XIV. 16, 17. 533 


walkest no longer according to what benevolence requires; %. e., thou 
dost violate the law of love, which would require thee to do unto 
others that which thou wouldest that others should do unto thee. 
But this thou dost not, when thou demeanest thyself in this manner. 

Mj... ἀπέθανε, destroy not him by thy meat, for whom Christ died. 
That ἀπόλλυε means destroy, seems plain from comparing 1 Cor. viii. 
11 and verse 20 below. The word ἀπόλλυμι was sometimes employed 
by the Greeks in the sense of cructare, to torment, vex; a sense 
whicli is possible here, but not probable. The meaning seems to be: 
‘Do not furnish an occasion of stumbling to thy brother, lest he fall 
and come into condemnation. —‘Yrie οὗ Χριστὸς ἀπέθανε seems to be 
added in order to show how very differently Christ himself acted and 
felt, with respect to Christians who are weak in faith ; and thus to 
paint, in glowing colours, the criminality of those who refused to 
imitate his spirit. 

(16) Mj... ἀγαθόν, let not your good then be evil spoken of. Oi, 
therefore, then, 7. ¢., since such is the case, viz., that Christ died for 
sinners, and that you are under obligation to show the spirit of simi- 
lar benevolence toward your fellow Christians, you ought to demean 
yourselves in such a way, as that you will give no occasion for the 
religious liberty which you enjoy to be evil spoken of. ‘That ἀγαθόν 
here means freedom from the yoke of bondage which the ceremonial 
law imposed, I cannot well doubt ; and so Origen, Theodoret, Ben- 
gel, Clarius, and others understood it. But Chrysostom, Theophy- 
lact, Erasmus, and others, understand by ἀγαθόν the Christian religion 
in general. ‘The sense would be good, if construed in this way; but 
less appropriate, however, than the meaning above given. 

(17) οὐ γὰρ... ἁγίῳ, for the kingdom of God is not meat and 
drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. The 
γάρ here introduces a reason why Christians should not suffer their 
good to be evil spoken of. ‘H βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ here means, the 8ρύ- 
ritual kingdom of God or Christ; his reign within; his moral 
dominion over the hearts of men: in a word, true Christianity. 
‘This does not consist in refraining or not refraining from this or that 
food or drink ; but spiritual life consists in holy conformity to God, 
peaceful and gentle demeanour, and joy such as is imparted by the 
influences of the Holy Spirit. A truly admirable description of the 
nature of real Christianity ! Eig4ym here means peace, in opposition 
to discord and contention among brethren.—’ Ey πνεύματι ἅγιῳ may be 


534 ROMANS xiv. 18—20. 


applied, as a qualification, to δικαιοσύνη and εἰρήνη as well as to χαρά; 
but I prefer the construction which I have given. 

(18) 'O vag... ἀνθρώποις, for he who serveth Christ in respect to 
these things, is acceptable to God, and approved by men. The γάρ 
here introduces a reason why peace and joy follow the practice of 
pure Christian principles. Ἐν τούτοις means the things before men- 
tioned, in regard to meats and drinks and feast days, Ge. δόκιμος, 
acceptus, gratus; the apostle means, that men will speak well of such 
a demeanour as he had commended. 

(19) "Aga οὖν. . . ἀλλήλους, therefore let us strive after peace and 
mutual edification. Τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης ... τὰ τῆς οἰκοδομῆς, are, accord- 
ing to a very common usage of the Greek, ἃ periphrasis for ra εἰρηνικά, 
&c., or for the simple εἰρήνη, οἰκοδομῇ .----- Τῆς εἰς ἀλλήλους; 1. 6., τῆς οἰκοδο- 
μῆς εἰς ἀλλήλους.--ΓῊ article is commonly supplied in this way, be- 
fore adjectives that follow a noun in order to qualify it, or (which 
is the same thing) before nouns with prepositions, added merely to 
qualify the preceding and principal noun; New Test. Gramm. 
§ 92. 1. 

The object of this verse is, to charge the church at Rome to de- 
mean themselves in such a way, with regard to the matters in dispute 
which he had touched upon, as would promote the peace of the church 
and the edification of both parties. 

(20) Mj... Θεοῦ, destroy not the work of God on account of food. 
Τὸ ἐργὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ may be construed as being in substance the same as 
οἰκοδομή Θεοῦ in 1 Cor. 111. 9, and οἰχοδομνὴ . .. ἐν κυρίῳ in Eph. 11. 21, 
and οἰκοδομὴν ἑαυτοῦ in Eph. iv. 16; 2. 6.) as meaning Christians, or a 
Christian. But possibly the writer may refer here to the internal 
work of faith, which is called égyov Θεοῦ in John vi. 29. So Reiche, 
who, after Theodoret and others, construes it of faith and its conse- 
quences in renewing and sanctifying the soul; and appeals to 1 Cor. 
iii. 9.1 Pet. 1. 5. John vi.29. That the renewal and sanctifica- 
tion of the heart is the special reason why Christians are called 
God’s building, &c. is pla; but I see no reason why the sense here 
of ἐργον Θεοῦ may not be concrete, 7. e.. no reason why it may not be 
taken as including the persons in whom such a work is carried on. 
—Karddve is a verb accommodated to the figurative expression égyov 
Θεοῦ, and means fo pull down, to destroy. ‘The meaning is: ‘ Do not 
so demean thyself, in respect to this dispute about meats clean and 


unclean, as to cause thy weak brother to sin and to fall into condem- 
pation.’ 


ROMANS Χιν. 21, 22. 539d 


Πάντα μὲν καθαρά, all [meats] are clean; 7. e., no distinction of food 
is to be made under the Christian dispensation. All distinctions of 
this nature made by the Levitical law are abolished. That πάντα 
agrees with βρώματα implied, is clear from ἕνεκεν βρώματος of the preced~ 
ing verse. Μέν in the protasis here has ἀλλά in the apodosis for its 
corresponding particle, which is often the case; see Passow’s Lex. 
μέν, 2 f— AAA . . . ἐσθίοντι, they are hurtful to the man who eats 
so as to occasion stumbling thereby. ᾿Αλλά here concedes what is 
said in the preceding clause, but stands (as it often does) before a 
~ clause which limits or makes exception to this general principle.— 
Διά, before a noun in the Genitive, often designates the manner in 
which a thing happens or is done; so (for example) in Luke viii. 4, 
διά παραβολῆς, 1. 4.) παραβολικῶς; Acts xv. 27, διὰ λόγου, orally; 2 Cor. 
x. 11, δὲ ἐπιστολῶν, in the way of writing; Heb. xitt. 22, διὰ βραχέων, 
_ briefly, &c.; see Bretschn. in διά, c. a. But here it may seem uncertain 
at first view, whether διά προσκόμματος designates the giving of offence, 
or the taking of offence. The context shows, however, that the for- 
mer is the more probable; inasmuch as the apostle is here plainly 
addressing those who were not weak in the faith, but believed that 
all meats were clean. What he says, then, may well be supposed 
to have reference to their actions and the effects of them. 

Kaxéy here makes some difficulty. Is it subject or predicate? 
The most facile construction seems to be, to repeat βρῶμα mentally 
from the preceding part of the verse, and to arrange the sentence 
thus: ἀλλὰ κακόν [ἐστι βοῶμα!] τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ κ. τ. Δ. Or πᾶν may be un- 
derstood as the subject of the sentence; or καχόν may be rendered as 
a noun == bad or evil thing, for so κολόν appears to be constructed in 
the next verse. The meaning of καχέν in this case is spiritual, not 
physical. The apostle means to say, that it is a sin when any one 
eats so as to give offence in such cases. The participle σῷ ἐσθίοντι 
seems to be equivalent to the Inf. mode é0é/e; and it may be rendered 
here as expressing conditionality, i. 6.) if or provided that he eat, &c. 
See N. Test. Gram. § 140. 8. 

(21) Kar... . ἀσθενεῖ; it is good not to eat flesh, nor drink wine, 
nor [to do any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or has ground 
of offence, or is made weak. Μηδὲ ἐν ᾧ is elliptical; the full expres- 
sion would be, μηδὲ φαγεῖν ἣ πιεῖν τὶ ἐν ᾧ xr. A The words ἢ σκανδαλί- 
ζεται ἢ ἀσθενεῖ, are omitted in Codd. A. C. 67, and in Syr. Arab. Copt. 
versions ; also in Orig., Ruf, and Augustine. Mill and Koppe hold 
them to be a gloss or repetition of προσκόπτει; but Reiche contends 


536 : ROMANS xv. 1—33. 


against this. ‘ The sense of ἀσθενεῖ is to render incompetent, viz., in- 
competent to walk safely or securely. 

(22) Σὺ... ... Θεοῦ, hast thou faith? keep it to thyself before God ; 
ἃ, 6.. hast thou a belief that there is no difference in meats (which 
is truly the case), yet deem it sufficient, in respect to this point, to 
regulate by it thy conduct in private as seen only by the eye of God. 
Do not act this out in public, when you may give needless and in- 
jurious offence. πίστιν has a limited sense here, as in ver. 1 of the 
present chapter. 

Maxdgws . . . » δοκιμάζει, happy [is he], who does not condemn 
himself in respect tothe thing which he allows; 1.e., we may con- 
eratulate that man, who does not so use his Christian liberty in re- 
spect to food, as to bring on himself condemnation or blame by an 
abuse of it, or by making use of it in an imprudent and inconsiderate 
manner. | 

Ἔν @ in this case is an example of attraction which is of an ellip- 
tical nature. It stands for ἐν τούτῳ 6; which would complete the gram- 
matical construction. See N. Test. Gram. § 113. Note 2. 

(23) 0 δὲ . . . πίστεως, but he who doubts is condemned if he eat, 
because it is not of faith ; i.e, he who doubts whether it is lawful 
for him to eat a particular kind of food, and yet eats it, is worthy of 
condemnation; because he does this against his conscience or belief, 
or at least without an approving conscience. 

Πᾶν 6: .. , ἐστί, and every thing that is not of faith is sinful; 
i. e., not only eating against one’s conscience or without an approv- 
ing conscience, is deserving of condemnation, but any thing else done 
in like manner is sinful. Noman should indulge in any demeanour 
or conduct, when the lawfulness of it is to him a matter of doubt. A 
truly excellent maxim in Christian morals, and one which, if duly 
heeded by Christians, would prevent many a bitter hour of darkness 
and contrition. 


CHAP, XV. 1—83. 


BETWEEN the preceding verse and verse 1 of this chapter, the Cod. Alex., and 106, Codd. 
minusc., most of the Greek fathers, together with the Syriac and Arabic versions, insert vers. 
25—27 of chap. xvi., é. ¢., the close of this epistle. Hence has arisen the controversy, whether 
the epistle properly closes with chap. xiv. On the side of the textus receptus, which places 


ROMANS xv. 1 —3. 537 


these verses at the end of the epistle, are the Cod. Vaticanus, 3 uncial Codd., several Codd. 
minusc., and the Latin fathers. For this arrangement, also the internal evidence arising from 
the connection may be appealed to; for if seems to be quite plain, that chap. xv. is intimately 
connected with chap. xiv., in respect to the subject of which it treats. If Paul be the author of 
the whole epistle (and the evidence appears to be very satisfactory that he is), then it would be 
somewhat singular that the passage in xvi. 25—-27 should be inserted here, where thers seems 
to be no special call for a doxology, and where the connection is so close with the sequel, as it 
stands in the textus receptus. Flatt appeals to Eph. iii. 20, in order to show that Paul is accus- 
tomed to introduce doxologies into the body of his epistles. He might have appealed to several 
other instances of the like nature; 6. g., Rom. i. 25. xi. 36. 2 Cor. xi. 31. Gal. i. 5. Phil. iv. 20, 
1 Tim. i. 17; but all these examples are in quite a different situation from that of the present one, 
for with one exception (1 Tim, i. 17), God is the immediately preceding subject of the writer; and 
in 1 Tim. i. 17, this is implied. But such is not the case in the instance under examination. The 

“internal congruity of the passage, then, seems to be strongly against the insertion of xvi. 25—27 
in this place. And although Griesbach has inserted it, and Morus, Wetstein, Flatt, Tholuck and 
many other critics approve of this; yet I agree most cordially with Dr. Knapp, who has decided 
more conformably, as I apprehend, to the principles of true criticism, that the order of the tez- 
tus receptus is the true One. 

In the present chapter, Paul continues to exhort the church at Rome to strive after unity and 
peace. He sets before them the self-denial of Christ, vers. 3,4. He beseeches God to give them 
the spirit of Christian unity and love, vers. 5,6. He exhorts them to a mutual kind reception 
of each other, ver. 7. He shows that the reception of Gentiles into the Christian church, had - 
been clearly and often predicted. vers. 8—12,; and prays God to fill them all with joy and peace, 
verse 13. He apologizes, as it were, for writing to the Church at Rome, by describing the nature 
of his office as an apostle to the Gentiles, the labours which he had performed while holding this 
office, and the affectionate desire which he had cherished of paying the church at Rome a visit, 
vers. 14—24. He describes to them the plan of his future journeys and labours, expresses his 
hope of yet visiting them, and begs an affectionate interest in their prayers to God for him, vers. 
25—32. He then concludes with a benediction, ver. 33, 


(1) ᾿οφείλομεν δὲ... βαστάζειν, we, however, who are strong, ought 
to bear with the infirmities of the weak. Az must, on the whole, be 
considered as adversative here. ‘The course of thought seems to be 
thus: ‘He who eats in a state of doubt, commits a sin against his 
own conscience; but we, who have more enlightened views, ought 
to bear with his scruples, and not to demean ourselves so as to in- 
crease them. So Reiche. δύνατοι, the strong in faith, i. e., those 
who had no scruples about meats and drinks, &c..— Αδυνάτων, those 
who were not δύνατοι, %. ¢., who had scruples, &e.—Baordfew, to bear 
with, to endure patiently, to tolerate; comp. Gal. vi. 2. Rev. ii. 2. 

Καὶ μὴ ἑαυτοῖς ἀρέσκειν, and not to please ourselves; 1. e., not to act 
merely in such a way as would gratify our own views and inclina- 
tions. See the example of Paul, in 1 Cor. ix. 22. 

(2) Exaoriog . . . οἰκοδομήν let each one of us please his neighbour 
in respect to that which is good unto [his] edification ; 1. e., let us act 


538 ROMANS Xv. 3—0). 


in such a manner as to please our neighbour, so far as we may do 
so and do what is good; let us act so as to edify him. 

(3) Kal γὰρ. . .. ἤρεσεν, for Christ did not please himself ; i. e., 
Christ did not have respect merely to his own pleasure or pain, con- 
venience or inconvenience ; but did that which was grateful and use- 
ful to others, although he exposed himself to great suffering in 
consequence of acting thus. Ide stands prefixed here to a reason 
why we ought to seek the good of others. 

᾿Αλλὰ. . . ἐπ᾿ ἐμέ, but, as it is written, the reproaches of those 
who reproached thee have fallen upon me. The passage is quoted from 
Ps. lxix. 10 (Ixix. 9). The general sentiment is here accommo- 
dated to a particular case; 7, ¢., the same thing which this sentiment 
declares, was in fact exemplified in the treatment which Christ re- 
ceived. In other words, Christ suffered reproaches rather than to 
desist from his beneficence towards others; which is the sentiment 
of the passage quoted. ' 

(4) Ὅοσα γὰρ. .. προεγράφη, for whatsoever things were written 
in ancient times, were written for our instruction. The connection 
of this verse with the preceding is somewhat difficult. The γάρ here 
seems to follow something implied, viz., ‘This Scripture is appro- 
priate, for, &c. πΠροεγράφη, lit. were written before, i. 6.7 τὰ former 
days, in ancient times, as I have rendered it above. 

"ba . . . ἐχωμεν, that through patience, and the admonition of the 
Scriptures, we might obtain hope. Ὑπομενῆς refers to a patient en- 
durance of the troubles and sorrows, to which the doing of good may 
expose us; or to patient tolerance of the ignorance and prejudice of 
others. Reiche refers it to patient continuance in belief. But this 
is not so apposite :—ragaxAjozws seems here to mean admonition or 
exhortation; for it refers back to διδασκαλίαν, and if rendered consola- 
tion does not seem to be directly congruous with that word. The 
writer here refers to the exhortation virtually contained in the Scerip- 
ture quoted, to persevere meekly and patiently in doing good. 

Patience of this nature will produce hope; comp. Rom. v. 3—6. 
He who perseveres in thus doing good, amid the evils which may 
come upon him, will be rewarded with “a hope that maketh not 
ashamed.” 

(5) ‘O δὲ Θεὸς . . . ᾿Ιησοῦν, now may the God of patience and ad- 
monition give mutual unity of sentiment to you, according to Christ 
Jesus. ‘O Θεὸς τῆς ὑπόμονῆς means, God who bestows patience, or 
God who is the author of patience; just as the God of grace, is the 


ROMANS Xv. 6. 539 


God who bestows grace. So ὁ Θεὸς τῆς παρακλήσεως means, either 
God who is the author of exhortation or encouragement | viz. to per- 
severe |, or God who is the author of consolation. I understand za. 
ρακλήσεως here in the sense of exciting or exhorting to acts of self- 
denial, 7. ¢., to do those things which make for peace and for mutual 
Christian edification, although they may cost self-denial and mortifi- 
cation; which accords with the context above. —Agin is a later form 
of Opt. 2 Aor. for δοίη; which the older grammarians do not ac- 
knowledge. 
~ Κατὰ Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν means, in-accordance with the Spirit of Christ, 

or agreeably to what Christ or the Christian religion requires. 

The earnest supplication of the apostle, that the Romans may be led 
rd αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ἐν ἀλλήλοις, Shows how mistaken those are who think 
that practical unity of sentiment among Christians is uot desirable, 
even as to matters not essential to salvation; for surely the senti- 
ment about distinction of meats was not essential in this sense. If 
now such unity in smaller matters was urged by the apostle, then of 
course he would urge it far more in things essential to salvation. 
The precepts of the apostle show, also, that Christians may differ 
about externals, and things of minor importance, without hazarding 
their salvation; although not without endangering in some degree 
the peace and welfare of the Church. Such is the imperfection of 
human nature, that difference of opinion is apt to produce dispute ; 
and dispute of course is apt to lead, more or less, to alienation of 
feeling. 

(6) Ἵνα .. . Χριστοῦ, that with one accord and with one voice 
you may glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.— 
Ομοθυμαδόν comes from buds conjunctus, and ϑύμος animus. This 
characterizes the union of mind or sentiment, which the apostle de- 
sires should pervade the Christian church. Ἔν iv) στόματι charac- 
terizes the harmony of the voices, in the song of praise which was to 
be sung by the church; 2. ὁ. » they should not sing discordant notes, 
but harmonious ones. The meaningis not literal here, but figurative, 
viz., that with union in their praise to God they might offer him 
dhabduintainns that they might all accord in the same feeling and 
same Wahi 
In καὶ πατέρα, καὶ is explicative, i. ¢., “et copulat et explicat;” see 
Bretschn. Lex. καί, 2. 6. Such is a very common idiom in the New 
Testament with respect to καί as explicative; comp. 1 ate 1. 3. 
με οὖν ἐν τος 


540 ROMANS xv. 7—9. 


2 Pet. i. 11. 20. Phil. iv. 20. Eph. i. 3. Col. iii. 17. In these cases, 
viz. such as have xa/ explicative followed by a noun in apposition 
with the preceding noun and limiting or defining it, the article is 
usually omitted before the second noun, as here before σαφέρα ; com- 
pare also, in this respect, the examples cited above. 

(7) Ab... . Θεοῦ, therefore show kindness to each other, as Christ 
also hath showed kindness to you, unto the glory of God; i. e., in view 
of all that has been said, I beseech you to treat each other with bro- 
therly kindness and affection; yea, with kindness like to that which 
Christ has shown to you, in order that God may be glorified. 

Διό refers to all which had been before said of Christian kindness 
and forbearance. As to σροσλαμβάνεσθε, comp. xiv. 8. Ὑμᾶς in the 
textus receptus is ἡμᾶς. This latter is removed, because the MSS. 
A. C. Ὁ. E. F. G., many Codd. minusce., and several versions and 
fathers, read iw&is.—Eis δόξαν Θεοῦ Tholuck interprets of eternal hap- 
piness, ἴ. 6.) the glory which God bestows. The phrase is capable 
of this meaning, comp. Heb. ii. 10. Rom. v. 2. 1 Pet. v. 4; but vers. 
8, 9, require a different sense here, viz., since Christ hath kindly 
received you, in order that God may be glorified. 

(8) Λέγω δὲ x τ. A. Δέ “accuratius definit,” ὁ. 6.) it is added to 
a phrase or sentence, inserted for the sake of more full: and entire 
explanation. The design, however, is not directly indicated by δέ, 
but by the nature of the case. The writer having asserted that 
Christ has kindly received us in order that God may be glorified, goes 
on now to add some things which serve to show, that Christ entered 
upon the duties of his mediatorial office in order to propagate the 
truth, and to bring Jew and Gentile nations to glorify God. 

᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν... Θεοῦ, Jesus Christ was a minister of the circum- 
cision, on account of the truth of God; 1. e., that Jesus Christ was a 
minister of the Jews, that he served the cause of divine truth among 
the Jews, in order to promote its true interests. ᾿Ὑσέρ, on account of, 
for the sake of. 

Εἰς rb... πατέρων, in order to confirm the promises made to the 
fathers ; 7.¢., in order to carry into execution the promises made to 
the ancient fathers, viz., of spiritual blessings to be bestowed on their 
children. 

(9) Τὰ δὲ... Θεόυ, [I say] also, that the Gentiles are to glorify 
God for his mercy [in Christ]: ὁ, e., the Gentiles as well as the Jews, 
are to be brought into the church, that God may be all and in all, and 


ROMANS xv. 10—13. 541 


thus be glorified by all men. Δέ, 1. 6,7 λέγω δέ as above, I add fur- 
ther. —AozZdoai is constructed with λέγω implied, as the version shows. 
The present phrase discloses the meaning of εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ in ver. 7. 

Διὼ τοῦτο. . . . Ward, on this account will I praise thee among 
the Gentiles, yea, to thy name will I sing praise. The quotation 
is from Ps. xviii. 49. The design of it is to show, that the Gentiles, 
as well as the people of Israel, would have the blessings of the go- 
spel proffered to them, and be brought to glorify God.—’ Ἑξομολογήσο-: 
pot, I will praise thee, like the Hebrew ΠΝ. Τοῦ ὀνόματί ood, to thy 
name, t.é., to thee, like the Hebrew owe. 

(10) Kal παλιν λέγει, viz. in Deut. xxxii. 49.---Εὐφράνϑητε ... αὐτοῦ, 
rejoice ye Gentiles with his people; Hebrew iY 01392 Ἴπ. The 
design of the quotation is, to show that the Gentiles are spoken of in 
the Old Testament Scriptures, as destined to be brought into the 
church of God, or as being made to praise him. 

(11) Καὶ πάλιν, viz., in Ps. cxvu. 1 (Sept. 116. 1). The sentiment 
is the same as before. The object in accumulating quotations, is 
additional confirmation of what the writer had advanced. 

(12) Ka? λέγει, viz., in Is. xi. 10. In the quotation, the apostle omits 
si D2, in that day. Also instead of the Hebrew O'S p22 THY 
WS, who shall stand as a banner of the nations or Gentiles, the 
apostle has (with the Septuagint) καὶ ὁ ἀνιστάμενος ἄρχειν ἔϑνων, one 
shall arise to be a leader of the Gentiles; ad sensum, but not ad 
literam, as the Hebrew vowels now are. But probably the apostle 
read 72, and then his version is literal. For ἐλιπιοῦσι, the Hebrew 
has #77. The whole quotation, therefore, is ad sensum only; and 
it is truly so much. It is added to the others for the same purpose 
as before, viz., with the design of showing that the Gentiles should 
belong to the Christian church, so that God may be glorified by 
them. 

Thus far in confirmation of the latter clause of ver. 7. The 
apostle now quits this subject, and resumes his supplications in behalf 
of the church at Rome, which were interrupted by ver. 7, seq. 

(13) ‘O δὲ Sets... πιστεύειν, now may the God of hope fill you with 
all joy and peace in believing ; 1. e., may that God who is the author 
of all Christian hope (comp. ἐλπιοῦσιν in ver. 12), make your joy and 
peace which result from faith in Christ, greatly to abound.—Ei¢ τὸ 

. ἁγίου, 80 that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the 
Holy Spirit; i. e., so that, having much joy and peace in believing, 


542 ROMANS Xv. 14—16, 


you may also have a lively Christian hope of future glory, through 
the influence of the Holy Spirit who dwells in you, and who gives 
the earnest of future glory; comp. Eph. i. 13, 14. Rom. viii. 23. 
with the notes upon it. 

(14) πέπεισμαι δέ, where δέ “ orationi continuande inservit,” as 
also in ver. 13 above.—Ka/ αὐτὸς ἐγώ, even I myself. Kai added to 
pronouns in this way, serves to make the expression more distinct 
and intense. Here it is as muchas tosay, ‘Even I who have thus 
warned and cautioned you, am persuaded, &c.’—Tleg/ ὑμῶν, in respect 
to you.u— O71... ἀγαθωσύνης, that you yourselves (καὶ αὐτοῖ) are filled 
with kindness. Καὶ αὐτοί indicates what I have expressed in the 
translation, as nearly as our language can express the value of the 
Greek phrase. “Aya dwotvgs I take here to refer to the kind feelings 
which the apostle hoped and believed the Roman Christians would 
cherish towards each other. 

Teranewuévor... νουϑετεῖ, abounding in all knowledge, and able to 
give mutual admonition. The meaning is: ‘I am persuaded that 
ye possess in abundance such Christian knowledge, i. ¢., such a know- 
ledge of Christian truths and principles, that ye will be able to give 
such advice and warning as you may mutually need.’ 

(15) Τολμηρότερον. . . ὑμᾶς, I have written in part the more boldly 
to you, brethren, as one repeating admonition, t. e., I have written 
with more freedom than might have been expected from a stranger, 
when reminding you of the various things which I have urged 
upon you. ᾿Απὸ μέρους means in some parts of his epistle, i. 6., as 
tosome things. It seems to qualify ¢yga)a— Επαναμιμνήσκων, adding 
to or repeating admonition, or something in the way of reminiscence. 

Διὰ τὴν χάριν... Θεοῦ, on account of the favour which was bestowed 
upon me by God; namely, the honour of the apostolic office (comp: 
Rom. i. 5), which the sequel shows to be the meaning of χάριν here. 

(16) Εἰς τὸ εἰναι... 29, that I should be a minister of Jesus Christ 
to the Gentiles. Because his office led him to preach the gospel to 
the Gentiles, and to exercise a spiritual watch over them, he had 
ventured to address the church at Rome with freedom. 

ἹἹερουργοῦντα . . . Θεοῦ, performing the office of a priest [in respect 
to] the gospel of God: i. e., acting a part in respect to the concerns 
of Christians, not unlike that of a priest among the Jews.— la 
yivnrat.. . ἁγίῳ, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, 
being purified by the Holy Spirit; i. e., that the Gentiles may be 
offered to God, whom as their λεισουργός I present, inasmuch as they 


ROMANS Xy. 17 £19, 543° 


have been rendered clean, pure, by the sanctifying influence of the 
Holy Spirit on their hearts. 

(17) Ἔχω οὖν... Osu, 7 have then cause for glorying, through 
Jesus Christ as to those things which pertain to God; 1. e., being a 
minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, I have cause for rejoicing, 
that he has strengthened me and given me success among them, in 
things pertaining to religion.— Οὖν, then, i. ¢., since God has bestowed 
such an office upon me.— Ev Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ may mean through the aid 
of Christ. Paul had just averred that he was λειτουργὸς ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ: 
and as such, he may be understood as here intimating that Christ 
had afforded him aid, so as to ‘ensure him success in his employment. 
That ἐν often has the meaning of by or through, in the sense of ope, 
auxilio alicwjus, there can be no doubt; 96. g. “He casts out 
demons ἐν τῷ ἀρχοντι, by the aid of the prince of demons,” Matt. ix. 
34, In like manner ἐν is used in John xvii. 10. Acts iv. 9. xv. 7. 
xvii. 28, 31, et sepe alibi. But ἐν Χ. Ἰησοῦ may also mean, ‘I, 
being in Christ Jesus, viz. as before described, have cause for glory- 
Ing, ete.’ 

(18) Οὐ γὰρ... ἐμοῦ for I will not presume to mention any thing 
which Christ hath not wrought by me ; ὁ, 6.7 I do not, in saying this, 
intend to claim any praise by exaggerating my success, or taking to 
myself credit for what I have not done or for what Christ has not 
done by me εἰς ὑπακοὴν ἔϑνων, in order to bring the Gentiles to obey 
the gospel.— Λόγῳ καὶ ργῳ means, by preaching and by other personal 
effort. Tae explicantis, i. e., preceding what serves to limit the decla- 
ration which goes before. The connection seems to be thus: I 
speak of the glorying in Christ which I may truly have; for I will 
not presume to appropriate to myself any praise for what I have not 
done, or rather, for what Christ has not done by me. 

(19) Ἔν duvelwer . . . τεράτων, by the influence of signs and wonders, 
or wonderful signs. In Hebrew, 5.7812) Min& (usually conjoined) 
means wonders, signs, or miracles adapted to persuade or enforce 
belief in the power, providence, veracity, ete., of God. The union 
σήμεια καὶ τέρατα in the New Testament, is an imitation of this 
idiom. It may be rendered as a Hendiadys, and the latter noun 
made an adjective to qualify the former, agreeably to an idiom com- 
mon both m the Old and New Testament. If rendered signs and 
wonders, then σημείων means miraculous proofs adapted to impress 
the mind with conviction, and τέρατα means wonderful events or oc- 
currences, adapted to fill the mind with awe. Both together consti- 


544 | ROMANS xv. 19. 


tute a very strong designation of “Gate sae interposition and im- 
pose evidence: arising from it. 

Ἔν δυνάμει. .. ἁγίου, δ᾽ y the influence of the Holy Spirit, may refer 
to the signs and wonders performed by virtue of this influence; and. 
so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others, have understood it. 
But it may also mean the internal influences of the Spirit, e. g., the - 
gift of prophecy, the power of speaking in foreign languages, etc., 
and so Beza, Grotius, Tholuck, and others have explained it. In 
this case it is co-ordinate with δυνάμει σημείων καὶ τεράτων, not subor- 
dinate to it, 1. 6.5 not used merely to qualify it. Reiche understands 
it as epexegetical of σημείων καὶ τεράτων, which he refers to the internal 
influences of the Spirit ; but general usage is against such an inter- 
pretation. Op the whole I regard ἐν δυνάμει παν. &y. as co-ordinate: 
with the preceding phrase, and designed to mark the internal spiri- 
tual gifts of Christians. 

"Qore με. . . Χριστοῦ, so that from Jerusalem and around, even to 
Tilyricum, I have fully declared the gospel of Christ. “Ὥστε we... . 
πεπληρωκέναι is the usual construction of the Infinitive with dere. 
Πεπληρωχέναι many interpret as having here the sense of diffusing, 
spreading abroad ; and this they derive from the sense of filling up, 
which the word commonly has, because, in order to jill Up, ἃ diffusion 
into all parts is necessary. [ἢ the like sense the word is said to be 
employed in Acts v. 28; but this is a mistake as the verb is there 
followed by a noun which designates place, and therefore the verb 
retains the usual meaning. A real parallelis in Col. 1. 25, πληροῦν 
σὸν λόγον; Where the meaning seems to be fully to declare, %. 6.5) to 
accomplish or complete the declaration of the diyine doctrine. The 
passages quoted by Reiche, from 3 K. i. 14 (Sept.) and 1 Mace. iv. 
19, are inapposite ; the first having another sense, and the latter 
depending on a contested reading. ‘The phrase, in the sense which 
Paul gives it, appears to be peculiar to him alone, elsewhere it means 
to fulfil, in the sense of fulfillmg a prophetic declaration, &c.  Ily- 
ricum was a province bounded south by Macedonia, west by the 
Adriatic, east by a part of the river Danube, and north by a part of 
Italy and Germany. It corresponds with the modern Croatia and 
Dalmatia; and was the extreme boundary of what might be called 
the Grecian population. ‘The cirele of Paul’s preaching, then, as 
here described, reaches from the extreme north-west of the land of 
the Greeks, to Jerusalem and round about, i. ¢., it comprehends all 
Greece in the widest sense of this term, hein Menta: the Grecian. 


ROMANS xv. 30---29, 545 


islands, the country between Asia Minor and Jerusalem, and the 
region around Jerusalem, 2. ¢., Phenicia, Syria, and part of Arabia. 
Comp. Acts ix. 20. Gal. i. 16, 17. 

(20) Οὕτω .. . οἰκοδομῶ, and was strongly desirous to preach the 
gospel, not where Christ was named lest I should build on another's 
foundation. φΦιλοτιμούμενον is tobe constructed with μέ, taken from 
the preceding verse. The word literally signifies to covet or desiiz 
as an honour, to regard as honourable, hence the secondary sense, 
to desire strongly, earnestly to wish for or to covet. Οὕτω must be re- 

- garded as qualifying sduyyea/Ceodas. Its present position seems to 
be for the sake of emphasis.. Its correspondent is καθώς in the next 
verse. I have endeavoured to represent all this in the version and 
its punctuation; but it is difficult to do it in a satisfactory manner. 

As οὕτω is designed to refer to the manner of preaching, so the 
apostle describes this first negatively, by οὐκ ὅπου, x. τ. A.) then affirm- 
atively by ἀλλὰ καθὼς, κ. τ. Ae 

(21) ᾿Αλλὰ... συνήσουσι, but, as wt is written: They shall sce to 
whom no declaration was made respecting him, and they who have 
not heard shall understand. The quotation is from Is. li. 15; a 
passage which seems to have respect to the Messiah’s being made 
known to the heathen. The apostle quotes it here in order to illus- 
trate and to justify the principle which he had avowed, viz., that of 
preaching the gospel where it was entirely unknown before. The 
quotation says as much as to declare, that the gospel shall be thus 
proclaimed. ἤοψονται and συνήσουσι are to be understood as designat- 
ing mental vision and perception; for this is what the writer intends 
to designate. 

(22) διὸ καὶ. . . ὑμᾶς, wherefore I was greatly hindered from 
coming to you. Διό means, on account of his many and urgent calls 
to preach elsewhere. Καί is here joined with ἐνεχοπτόμην τὰ πολλώ as 
an intensive, t. e., “sensum intendit, augmentat.” ‘The apostle does 
not simply say, that he was often hindered or much hindered, txoxrs- 
μὴν τὰ πολλά, but καὶ ἐκοπτύμην τὰ πολλά, I was altogether hindered, i. e., 
I had such frequent and urgent calls elsewhere, that it was impossi- 
ble for me to visit Rome as I desired to do. Passow is, so far as I 
know, the first lexicographer who has done any tolerable justice to 
the Proteus καί οὗ the Greeks. 

(23) Νυνὶ δέ. . . ἐτῶν, but now, having no longer any place in these 
regions, and being desirous for many years to pay you a visit. To- 
πον ἔχων, t.€., having no longer any considerable place, where I have 


not proclaimed the gospel. 
2M 


5AG ROMANS xv. 24—-27. 


(24) ‘Os ἐὰν. . . ὑμᾶς, whenever I may go into Spain, I hope, as 1 
pass on, to see you; ἃ, 6.5. intending to visit Spain, he meant to take 
Rome in his way. ᾿Εάν appears here (as often in the New Test., 
Sept. and Apocr.), to stand for ἄν. Its use in such a way seems to 
belong to the later Greek. See Winer N. T. Gramm. p. 257. ed. 3. 
Here it qualifies the particle of time, ὡς. The Subj. mood which 
foliows is designed to designate a possible or probable action. Had 
the Indic. been used (as D. E. F. G. exhibit it), then the meaning 
would be, that the apostle certainly expected, or was resolved to go. 
In the teatus receptus, ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς follows Σπανίαν ; which Gries- 
bach and Knapp have rejected, as they are not found in Codd. A. C. 
1. E. F. G., nor in the Syriac, Arabic or Coptic versions, &e. 
Whether the apostle did in fact ever make a journey to Spain, is 
somewhat uncertain. The tradition of the church affirms this; but 
not on sure grounds. In case we allow that he was imprisoned a 
second time at Rome, such a journey is not improbable. 

Kal... exe, and to be sent on my way thither by you. The apo- 
stle here refers to the usual custom of the churches, when the mes- 
sengers of the gospel departed from them, of sending their elders, &c., 
to accompany them for some distance on their journey; comp. Acts 
xv. 3. xvii. 14, 15. xx. 38. xxi. 5. "Edy... ἐμαλησθῶ, when Iam in 
part first satisfied with your company. Observe the delicacy of the 
expression. The apostle does not say ἐμωπλησθῶ, satisfied, but ἀπὸ μέρους 
ἐμπλησθῶ, partly satisfied, as though he never could enjoy their society 
sufficiently to gratify all his desires. 

(25) Nuvi 6... . ἁγίοις, but now I go to Jerusalem to supply the 
wants of the saints. Διακονέω is often used in the New Testament, 
to designate the supplying with food and other comforts of life. ‘At 
present, says the apostle, ‘I cannot visit you, as duty calls me in 
another direction.’ 

(26) Εὐδόκησαν γὰρ - . . ἹἹερουσαλήμ, for it has seemed good to Ma- 
cedonia and Achaia, to make some contribution for indigent Chris- 
tians at Jerusalem. Κοινωνίαν, contribution, collatio benefictorun. 
Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 1—4. 2 Cor. viii. ix. Acts xxiv. 17. 

(27) Εὐδόκησαν yag.. . cio, [1 say] it has seemed good, for they 
are truly their debtors. Τὰρ καὶ ὀφειλέται αὐτῶν εἰσι, assigns ἃ reason 
why it seemed good. Καὶ is here an intensive, truly, really. Dr. 
Knapp has pointed this verse so as to disturb the sense. The comma 
should not be after γάρ, but after εὐδοκησαν. 3 

EJ yde assigns a reason why they are debtors. 10 the Gentiles have 


ROMANS Xv. 2?8—531. 547 


shared in their spiritual things, they ought surely to aid them wm tem- 
poral things. Kai intensive, In χαὶ ἐν τοῖς σαρκχικοῖς. 

(28) Τοῦτο. . . Σπανίαν, now when this duty shall have been dis- 
charged, and this fruit made sure to them, I shall pass through the 
midst of you mto Spain. Καρπόν here means the fruit of the con- 
tribution in Macedonia and Achaia, thefruit which their benevolence 
hadproduced. Σφραγισώμενος, applied toan instrument in writing, means 
to authenticate it, to make tt valid, ἡ. e., sure to answer the purpose 
for which it was intended. So here, the apostle would not stop short 
in the performance of the duty with which he is entrusted as the 
almoner of the churches, until he had seen the actual distribution 
of their charity among the indigent saints at Jerusalem; a fidelity 
and an activity well worthy of all imitation. 

(29) Ofdu δὲ... ἐλεύσομαι, I know, also, that when I come to you 
I shall come with the full blessing of the gospel of Christ. Ἔν 
κληρώματι εὐλογίας, with an abundant blessing; where the first of the 
two nouns constitutes the adjective; comp. Heb. Gramm. ὃ 440. ὦ. 

(30) Παρακαλῶ 6:.... Χριστοῦ, moreover I beseech you, brethren, 
by the Lord Jesus Christ. Aé continuative.—Ai& ᾿Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, for 
the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ, t. e., out of love and regard for 
him.—Kai διὰ. .. πνεύματος, and by the love of the Spirit; 2. e, by 
the affectionate Christian sympathy for the friends of Christ, which 
the Spirit has given you.—Xwaywvicada: ... ϑεύν, that ye strive 
together for me, in your prayers to God in my behalf; t. e., that you 
unite with me in my Christian warfare, helping me by your earnest 
supplications to God in my behalf. 

(31) "Ive . . . ᾿Ιουδαίῳ, that I may be delivered from unbelievers in 
Judea; t. 6.) pray that I may be delivered from the enemies of the 
gospel in Judea, whither [am going: for I have reason to expect 
persecution and injury from them. 

Kal he... ἁγίοις, and that my service which is for Jerusalem may 
be acceptable to the saints. Διωκονία means his service in carrying 
and distributing the contributions of the Greek churches. It seems 
rather singular, at first, that he should doubt whether such a charity 
would be agreeable to indigent churches at Jerusalem. But when 
we call to mind the violent prejudices of the Jewish Christians, who 
were zealots for the law of Moses, we may well suppose that some 
of them would hesitate to come under obligations to Paul, the great 
champion of opposite opinions, and also to the charity of Gentile 


548 ROMANS XVI. l. 


Christians, who disregarded the laws of Moses with respect to cere= 
monial observances. 

(32) Ἵνα v..., ὑμῖν 80 that I may come to you with joy, if God 
will, and may be refreshed among you. Ἵνα is here connected in 
sense with the ἵνα guc34, x. τσ. 2. of the preceding verse. The sense is, 
‘that being delivered, &c., he may come with joy to them, &c.’— 
Διὰ ϑελήματος ϑεοῦ, Deo volente. 

(98) ‘O 6: ϑεὸς .« .. ὑμῶν, now the God of peace be with you all; 
t. é., may God, the author of peace, who bestows happiness, true 
prosperity, DIY be with you, 2. 6.7 aid you, and bless you. ᾿Αμῆν in 
the tewtus receptus, is of suspicious authority, and is so noted by Dr 
Knapp. 


CHAP. XVI. 


Tue apostle concludes his epistle by various affectionate greetings and commendations. 1—19. 
After which he warns the church against those who make divisions and give offence among 
them, ὁ, e., such as practise the contrary of that which he had been enjoining in the preceding 
part of his epistle, vers. 17, 18. He expresses his affectionate desire that they might be kind and 
simple-hearted, and his wish that the God of peace would give them the victory over the adver- 
sary of souls, the fomenter of discord among brethren, vers. 19, 20. He then expresses the salu- 
tations of several Christian friends and companions, who were with him, vers. 21—24; and con 
cludes with a devout doxology, vers. 25—27. 


(1) Συνίστημι δὲ... Κεγχρεαῖς, Now I commend to you Phebe our 
sister who is a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea. δέ continua- 
tive.—Asaxivoy, 1. 6.) τὴν διάκονον, for the Greeks used both ὁ et ἡ διάκονος. 
It should be remembered, that in the East women were not permit- 
ted to mix in the society of men, as in the western world they are 
at present. They were kept secluded, for the most part, in a retired 
room or γυνάκειον, to which no stranger could have access. Conse- 
quently it became highly important for the church to have ai 
διάκονοι, a8 well as οἱ διάκονοι, in order that the former might look to 
females who were indigent or sick. Accordingly we find the female 
deacons more than once adverted to, in the epistle of Paul; comp. 
1 Tim. iii, 11. ν. 10. Tit. ii. 8. Pliny in his letter to Trajan (x. 97), 
no doubt refers to the αἱ διάκονοι in the following passage: Neces- 
sarium credidi, ex duabus ancillis que ministre dicebantur, &c. 


ROMANS Xvi. ὃ---4. 549 


Keyxpeais, Cenchrea, was the eastern port of Corinth; for Corinth 
itself lay not upon the sea, but had two harbours some four or fiye 
miles distant from the city, viz., Cenchrea on the east and Lechea 
on the west. It would seem that Phebe was about to sail from Cen- 
chrea to Rome, when Paul wrote this epistle; and it is quite pro- 
bable that it was sent by her to the church at Rome. The word - 
Κεγχρεαί is used only in the plural, like ᾿Αθῆναι. 

(2) Ἵνα . . . ἁγίων that ye may receive her in the Lord in a 
manner worthy of the saints. That the phrase ἐν κυρίῳ may mean 
being in the Lord, t. e., being a member of his spiritual body (comp. 
1 Cor. xii. 27. Rom. xii 5. 1 Cor. x. 17. Eph. i. 22, 23. iv. 12. 
y. 30. Col. i. 24), the various passages in which it occurs leave no 
good room for doubt. So the sentiment here may be: ‘ Receive 
Phebe who is a Christian, in such a manner as becomes Christians,” 
i. é., with distinguished kindness and benevolence. But some refer 
ἐν κυρίῳ to the church at Rome, and interpret thus: ‘Do ye, as united 
to Christ, receive her worthily of the saints.’ I see no way of deter- 
mining which of these senses is the true one. Both accord with phi- 
lology and the nature of the case. I rather incline to the latter, 
because the sense is facile when we suppose the apostle to say : ‘Do 
ye, who are professed Christians, act worthily of your profession in 
this matter.’ 

Kal παραστῆτε . . . ἐμοῦ, and render her assistance in any thing, 
where she may need it of you; for she herself has been a helper of 
many, and especially of me. For the words παραστῆτε and προστάτις, 
see on προϊστάμενος in chap. ΧΙ. 8. This hint shows what the office 
of a deaconess was, 7. ¢., what duties it led her to perform. A com- 
parison of προστάτις here will serve to cast light on ὁ προϊστάμενος in 
Rom. xii. 8. | 

(3) Πρίσκαν, Prisca, the same as Πρίσκιλλα in Acts xviii. 2, 26. 
1 Cor. xvi. 19. The latter is merely a diminutive, which was com- 
monly applied to women in the way of courtesy or affection ; as John 
says to Christians: “ My “ttle children.” Both Priscilla and her 
husband Aquila are here called συνεργούς of the apostle—Ey Χριστῷ 
Ἰησοῦ, 2. 6.. in the Christian cause. 

(4) Oirwes. . . ὑπέϑηκαν, lit. who exposed their own neck for my 
life, %.e., who exposed their own neck to the sword, their own head 
to be cut off, in order to defend me from harm.—Ka! τὴν... aman 
σίαν, and the church which is in their house, %. e., which habitually 
convenes there. Aquila and Priscilla are spoken of, also, as having 


δδ0 ROMANS XVI. 5—16. 


a church in their house while at Ephesus, 1 Cor. xvi. 19; from 
which some have drawn the conclusion, that only their family, which 
consisted of Christians, are meant by éxzAnoiav; a criticism which is 
destitute of support from the usus loguendi of the New Testament. 
On the contrary, nothing is more natural than the supposition, that 
these zealous advocates of the Christian cause, wherever they so- 
journed, were accustomed to hold assemblies at their own house, for 
the purposes of Christian worship and instruction. All the meetings 
of the primitive Christians must have been in this way, inasmuch as 
they had at first no churches or temples where they could convene. 

(5) Epainetus; this and other names which follow down to ver 
15, designate persons otherwise unknown to us, but who, personally 
or otherwise, must have been known to the apostle.— Απσαρχὴ τὸὺς 
᾿Ασίας, one of the first who embraced Christianity under my preach- 
ing in proconsular Asia, ὃ. e., Asia Minor, probably in the Romana 
sense of that word.—Ei¢ Χριστόν, in respect to Christ. | 

(6, 7) It appears probable, that the persons here named had for- 
merly been residents in Asia or Greece, where the apostle was ac- 
quainted with them, but that they had now removed to Rome.— Ἐπί. 
σημοι, Of note, well-known, highly esteemed; ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, among 
the apostles.— Oi... Χριστῷ, who became Christians even earlier than 
myself; where ἐν Χριστῷ can hardly be mistaken. 

(9) ᾿Αγαπητόν μου ἐν Κυρίῷ, my beloved fellow Christian. 

(10) Τὸν δόκιμον ἐν Χριστῷ, a tried and approved Christian.—Tods ἐκ 
τῶν  AgisroBobrou, 1.6.5) τοὺς ὄντας ἐν Κυρίῳ ἐλ τῶν οἰκείων ᾿Αριστοβούλου; comp. 
the close of verse 11. 

(13)Myriga αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐμοῦ, his mother and mine; ἃ, e., his mother in 
a literal sense, and mine in a figurative one. 

(16) ’Aordécacde . . . ἁγίῳ, salute each other with a holy kiss; i.e. 
greet each other after the affectionate manner of Christians; live 
together in the kind exchange of Christian salutations and tokens 
of friendship. This custom is extensively maintained, at present, on 
the continent of Europe, among Christian friends, and others also. 
In itself, it is like any ewternal thing, not essential, but only a res 
loct et temporis, depending on the manners and customs of the time 
and place, like the wearing or not wearing of long hair at Corinth, 
&e. 

Αἱ ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι, 1. 6.7 all the churches in the vicinity of the apo- 
stle, or those which he had recently visited. This shows the custom 
of the early Christian churches, as to sending expressions of brotherly 


ROMANS XVI. 17-- 20. 551 


affection for each other, although they were mutual strangers in 
respect to personal acquaintance. 

(17) Σκοσεῖ, to consider attentively, to beware of.—Aryocracins, di- 
visions, viz., in the church, among brethren.—2xdvdara, offences, t. 6.» 
those who are the occasion of others stumbling and falling, by their 
uncharitableness or their superstition. Παρά, contrary to, against ; 
comp. Rom. i. 26. xi. 24. Gal. 1. 8,9. Heb. xi. 11. ᾿Ἑχχλίνατε de’ 
αὐτῶν, stand of from them, avoid them; 1. ¢., give them no counte- 

nance or approbation. an 7 

(18) Τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Χριστῷ, i.e, the Christian cause, or him who is 
the author of Christianity. —-KoiAig, their own appetite; t. ¢., they do 
not labour for the good of the Christian cause, but merely for their 
own private interests, merely to obtain a maintenance. 

The apostle seems, therefore, to refer here to certain teachers at 
Rome, at this time, who were the authors of division and offence 
there, and whose views extended no farther than the acquisition of 
a maintenance for themselves. 

Καὶ dia... . ἀκάκων, and by flattery and fair speeches beguile the 
minds of the simple. Theophylact : χρηστολογία, κολωκεία, 1. 6.) flattery. 
—-Eidoyias is eulogy, praise.—Kagdias, minds, like the Hebrew a Peis 
᾿Ακάκων means those who are destitute of suspicion, without guile, 
simple-hearted. 

(19) Ἢ γὰρ... ἀφίκετο, for your obedient temper of mind is known 
among all {the churches]; ὁ. ¢., the fame of your Christian temper, 
your readiness to obey the gospel, has been spread among all the 
churches. Τάρ seems here to be used in connection with something 
implied, and which the mind of the reader is to furnish; e. g., [I 
exhort you to do all this] γάρ, because I know that you will lend a 
listening ear. See Bretschn. Lex. on γάρ. 

Χαίρω οὖν... Yui, 1 rejoice, therefore, in respect to you; %. 6.50 since 
your obedient disposition has procured you such a good name in the 
churches, I rejoice. Τὸ ἐφ᾽ ὑμῶν, 1. 6.) κατὰ τὸ ἐφ᾽ ὑμῶν.---- Θέλω O2.... 
κακόν, and I wish you to be wise in respect to that which is good, but 
simple in regard to that which is evil. He means to say, that he 
desires the Roman Christians not to use their dexterity in order 
to accomplish selfish ends, like the false teachers among them; but 
to be willingly accounted simple or simpletons, in regard to doing 
evil. 

(20) Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης, may God who is the author of peace, or who, 
loves and approves it !—uvrgipe, Fut. for Optative, like the Heb. 


552 ROMANS XVI. 21—26, 


Future.— Σατανᾶν, Satan, viz., the malignant accuser of the brethren, 
and who delights in exciting the evil-minded to discord and division. 
May God disappoint all his malignant purposes, and preserve your 
harmony and kindly affection. The language of this wish (συντρίψει) 
refers to the prediction in Gen. iil. 15. 

Χάρις here means favour of every kind, like the D> Dipys of the 
Hebrews.— ἃ μήν seems to be spurious. 

(21) Luke, and Jason, and Sosipater are classed together here as 
relatives of Paul. If this be Luke the Evangelist, which seems 
altogether probable, then it would appear that he must have been of 
Ilebrew descent, at least in part; for Paul was “a Hebrew of the 
Hebrews,” ὦ. ¢., of pure Hebrew descent. Nevertheless, as συγγενεῖς 
does not mark the degree of relation, we cannot argue from this 
expression with much confidence. 

(22) Ῥέρτιος ὁ γρώψας, 7. 6.5 who was the amanuensis of Paul on 
the occasion of writing this cpistle. 

(23) ‘O Eévog μου, my host; ὦ. 6.) who has received me into his 
house, and showed me hospitality; and who shows an extensive hos- 
pitality to all Christians.—Oj/xovéuos τῆς πόλεως, the treasurer of the 
city.—Kovzerog shows the manner in which the Greeks prisoners 
the Latin gu, Quartus. 

(25) The whole now concludes with a general ascription of praise. 
Τῷ δυναμένῳ, sc. ἦ ἡ δόξα, as appears from the close of ver. 27. The 
sentence is suspended, after the usual manner of Paul, until he re- 
sumes it In μόνῳ σοφῷ “γεῷ.----Στηρίξαι, to establish; viz., in the Christian 
faith and practice.—Kard& τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μου, in accordance with the 
gospel which I preach, agreeably to the principles of this.—Ka) τὸ 
κήρυγμα, even the gospel of Jesus Christ, ὃ, ¢., even the gospel of 
which Jesus is the author, or which has respect to him. κήρυγμα 
is in apposition with εὐαγγέλιον ; and the object of Paul is to show 
by the whole declaration, that the gospel which he preached was 
the true one. 

Κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν .. .. σεσιγημένου, according to the revelation of the 
mystery which was kept in silence during ancient ages; 1. 6.0 agree- 
ably to the gospel which was not fully revealed in ancient times, 
but is now brought to light; comp. 1 Cor. ii. 7. Eph. iii. 5, 9. Col. 
i. 23. This phrase is co-ordinate with κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον above, and 
is designed for more ample description. 

(26) daveguSévrog δὲ . . . . προφητικῶν, but is now revealed by the 
Scriptures of the prophets. ‘The apostle first refers to the most 


ROMANS Xvi. 290. 553 


ancient times before any revelation was given, as the χρόνοι αἰώνιοι, 
when the gospel remained as it were concealed; next he points us 
to the Messianic prophecies contained in the Old Testament. But 
a difficulty lies in the mode of the expression. In other places Paul 
represents the gospel as hidden from the ancients, but now revealed, 
2. e., under the Christian dispensation; see Col. 1. 26. Eph. iii. 5, 
10, and comp. 1 Pet. i. 12. But still there is one passage (Rom. 
lil. 21) where he says of the grace of the gospel, νυνὶ πεφανέρωται, 
and at the same time he adds, μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προ- 
φητῶν; by which he means, that God has not only revealed his grace 
by his messengers in gospel-times, but that this same grace has the 
concurrent testimony and support of the Old Testament Scriptures. 
This mode of representation then would concur with the present one. 
Three things are predicated of the μυστήριον which he mentions in 
ver. 25; (1) That it was kept in a hidden or concealed state down 
to the time when the Old Testament dispensation commenced. (2) 
That it was disclosed, 7. 6.9 comparatively brought to light (gavegw- 
Jévros) by the ancient Scriptures. (3) That it was fully published 
or made known (γνωρισϑέντος) under the gospel dispensation. As to 
the φανερωδέντος νῦν here, it means the same in all essential respects as 
the μαρτυρουμένη ὑπό τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν of Rom. ii. 21. There 
is a concurrent testimony, declaration, or disclosure, by the ancient 
prophetic writings, which gives force to the new testimony under the 
gospel dispensation. . 

Had Reiche adverted to this, and considered the mode of expres- 
sion in Rom. iii. 21, which is so plainly of the same tenor as the 
present, he might have spared the censure which he casts on the 
whole of this last paragraph of the epistle, and the accusation of 
contradiction in the clause under examination. 

As to the other passages to which reference is made above, and 
which place the revelation of the gospel mysteries in later times in 
opposition to the silence of former days it is sufficient to remark, 
that it is only in a comparative puint of view that this is to be un- 
derstood; just as when the Saviour says, that ‘if he had not come 
and spoken to the Jews they had not had sin, but now they have 
no cloak for it ;? and just as when Paul says, that ‘life and immor- 
tality are brought to light by the gospel.’ Surely when Abraham 
and the patriarchs ‘sought a better country, even a heavenly one, 
they must have had some notions of immortality. It may be alto- 
gether correct, then, that gospel truth as disclosed by the prophets 


554 ROMANS XVI. 26. 


made only a twilight compared with the noontide glories of the new 
dispensation, and so there was ample occasion for the comparative 
views which the apostle has disclosed in Col. 1. 26. Eph. iii. 5, 10; 
at the same time it may be, and is equally true, that the gospel is 
in some degree disclosed (gavegw eis) in the Old Testament prophets, 
and is testified to (μαρτυρουμένην) by them, in their works, which are 
every day still read by Christians. 

One other difficulty still remains to be disposed of. It is that 
which is occasioned by the rs before γραφῶν. Inasmuch as the clause 
in which σε stands has another connective (δέ), we cannot regard it in 
the simple light of a conjunction, by which φανερωθέντος, x. +. A.1s joined 
to the preceding clause. It must then, as it would seem, have a 
relative meaning, and imply another clause after it to which either a 
καί or a τε is appended. Accordingly, the Syr., Arab., (Erp.), and 
eth. versions insert the and before zur’ ἐ ἐπιταγήν, Hn T. Ae But as there 
is no room for critical doubt of the genuineness of the τε here, and 
as καί is destitute of other support than these versions, we seem still 
to find our way hedged up. 

Beza, Michaelis, Mezus, and Flatt, in order to extricate shemgolvan 
from this difficulty, propose to begin the third predicate of the apostle 
with διά τε γραφῶν, x +. A. and to connect all the sequel of the verse 
with γνωρισθέντος. But then φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν would be left in too nude 
astate; and there can scarcely be a doubt that διά τε γραφῶν προφητικῶν 
must be connected in sense with the par ticiple Φανερωθέντος. 

We must resolve the difficulty, then, in another way. The whole 
paragraph is elliptical in an uncommon degree; witness τῷ δυναμένῳ 

. then μόνῳ σόφῳ IH... without any predicate or copula. We 
may well suppose then that κατ᾽ is omitted before κατ᾽ ἐπσιταγήν, it 
being necessarily implied by the presence of the τε in the preceding 
‘phrase. In this way κατ᾽ ἐσιταγήν, x. τ. 4. belongs to the last clause, 
and is to be connected (as it should be) with the part. γνωρισθέντος ; 
so that the sense of the last clause is, that ‘the gospel, by the com- 
mandment of the eternal God, has been published to all nations, in 
order to lead them to the obedience which faith ensures.’ 

The objection of Reiche to this construction, does not strike me 
as valid. He alleges that too much is thus connected with the part. 
γνωρισθέντος, and that the gospel was not made known to the heathen 
by the prephetic Scriptures. As to the first, nothing can be more 
consonant with the manner of Paul (comp. Rom. i. 1—4); and as to 
the second, the apostle does not aver that the gospel was made 


ROMANS XVI, 27. 535 


known to the heathen by the Jewish Scriptures; for the last clause, 
κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν, x τ᾿ Δ. merely stands as co-ordinate with φανερωθέντος, 
z. το A, and not subordinate to it. Reiche, however, who at the out- 
set casts away as spurious vers. 25—-27, makes as much difficulty as 
he can with every part of them. But here I cannot help thinking 
that he has failed. 

(27) The apostle now resumes the doxology which he had begun 
in ver. 25 by τῷ δυναμένῳ, with μόνῳ, x τ. 2% The pronoun ᾧ here 
wouldseem torelate grammatically and most naturally toJ esus Christ. 
But in such a case, in order to complete the construction, Θεῶ must be 
joined with ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας implied, or δόξα, or some equivalent 
word must be understood immediately after it. Following another 
mode of construction, we must refer ᾧ to Θεῷ, and either construe it 
as equivalent to αὐτῷ (which however wants precedent to confirm 
it); or we must take ᾧ in the demonstrative sense, viz., as employed 
for οὗτος or éd¢ (it often is so employed, Passow, Lex. ὅς, B), and 
translate it, ‘ to this one be glory, etc. This, on the whole, is the 
more facile way of construing it. The first mode of construction 
seems at least to be rather hard; yet the elliptical form of the whole 
paragraph detracts somewhat from the hardness of it, and makes it 
quite possible. 

The subscription, like most of the others in the Pauline epistles, 
is adscititious. Chap. xvi. 1 doubtless gave occasion to it; and the 
matter of it is in all probability correct. But we cannot regard it as 
coming from the hand of Paul; for surely he did not need to inform 
the church at Rome, by a subscription, who it was that conveyed 
the epistle to them, when he had once commended the same indivi- 
dual to their hospitality. Moreover, competent external evidence of 
genuineness is wanting. 


oe 
iar 


Bee 


EXCURSUS I, 


On υἱὸς ϑεοῦ in Rom. i. 4 (p. 46). 


THE phrase υἱοῦ Isov is, as one may easily believe, difficult of interpretation. 
In order to be as brief as possible, begin with the generic idea. Υἱὸς θεοῦ 
any rational being may be called, who is formed in the image of God, i.e., 
possesses by his gift a moral and intellectual nature like his own. The or'- 
ginal idea of vids, is that of derivation. The secondary one (which is often 
employed), is that of resemblance. The third gradation of meaning is, that 
of being regarded or treated as a son, occupying the place of a son, viz., hav- 
ing distinguished gifts, favours, or blessings bestowed on any one. To 
one or the other of these classes of meaning, may all the instances be traced 
in which the phrase son or sons of God is applied, in the Old Testament 
or the New. ᾿ ε : 

It is superfluous here to show that υἱός, in its primary and literal sense as 
applied to the relations of men, means a masculine descendant of any one; or 
that it means generally offspring posterity, near or remote. In regard to the 
phrase υἱὸς ϑεοῦ, itis applied (1) To Adam, as proceeding immediately from 
the hand of the Creator, Luke iii. 38. (2) To those who are regenerated, or 
born of the Spirit of God, Johni. 12,13; Rom. viii. 15, 17; 1 John iii. 1, 
2, et sepe alibi. Connected with this, is the usage of calling all trae wor- 
shippers of God his sons; 6. g., Matt. v. 9, 45; Luke vi. 35, XX. 36; Rom. 
vili. 14, 19; 2 Cor. vi. 18; Gal. iii. 26; Heb. xii. 6; Rev. xxi. 7, et alibi. 
(3) The same appellation issometimes given tosuch as are treated with special 
kindness ; 6. g., Rom. ix. 26; Hos. i. 10, xi. 1; Deut. xxxii.5, 19; Isai. i. 2. 
xhii. 6; Jer. xxxi. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 18. God, as the common father and bene- 
factor of all men, good and bad, in reference to this relation, often calls 
himself a father, and styles them his children ; “ If I be a father, where is 
mine honour?” “TI have nourished and brought up cAz/dren, but they have 
rebelled against me.” , Moreover, as all men are made in his image, ἢ, 6.. 
have an intellectual, rational, and moral nature like his own, on this account 
also they may be styled his children ; but more especially does this apply to 
those who are regenerated, and in whom the image of God that had been in 
part defaced, isrestored. (4) As bearing some resemblance to the Supreme 
Ruler of the universe in respect to authority, or as having office by hisspecial 
favour, kings are sometimes named sons of God; e. g., Ps. 1xxxii. 6 (Py 23). 
2 Sam. vii. 14, So in Homer διογενὴς βασιλεύς, 1]. lib. i. 279, 11.196. (δ) 
Angels are called suns of God, for the like reason that men are, viz., because 
God is their creator and benefactor ; and specially, because they bear a high 
resemblance to God; see Job i. 6, ii. 1, xxxviii. 7; Dan. iii. 25. 

It is evident from inspecting these examples, that men and angels may be 
called sons of God for more than one reason; nay, that in some cases all the 
reasons for giving this appellation are united. Z. g, a pious Israelite might 


558 EXCURSUS I, ON ROM. 1. 4. 


be called a son of God, because God was his creator; because of the special 
favours and blessings bestowed upon him, 2. e., because of his being treated 
asason; because he was born again by the power of the Holy Spirit; and 
because he bore a special resemblance to his heavenly Father. For each 
or for any one of these reasons, it is obvious we might, agreeably to Scrip- 
ture usage, call any one a son of God, who is truly pious; and for all of them 
combined, or for any part of them, we might in like manner bestow on him 
the same appellation. I mention this here, because it is of no small import- 
ance in rightly estimating the force of ὁ υἱὸς rod Seod, as applied to Christ. 
We come now to consider this last phrase, as applied in this manner. 

(a) It designates Jesus as produced in the womb of the Virgin Mary, by 
the miraculous influence of the Holy Spirit, Luke i. 32 (comp. Luke iii. 38). 
Perhaps the same sense belongs to it in Mark i. 1. The words of the cen- 
turion in Matt. xxvii. 54, and Mark xv. 39, seem, in the mouth of a Roman, 
to have the like sense, aithough perhaps it is not altogether the same. 

(ὁ) It means Jesus as the constituted king or Messiah. F..-g., Matt. xvi. 
16, xxvi. 63; Mark xiv.61; Lukexxii. 70; Johni. 49, xi. 27; and probably 
in Matt. viii. 29, xiv. 83; Mark iii. 11, v.7; Luke iv. 41, viii. 28; Johni. 
34, vi. 69, ix. 35, x. 36; Acts ix. 20, xiii. 88; Heb.v.5. In the like sense 
the appellation soz is given tohim, in the way of anticipation, by the ancient 
prophets who foretold his appearance, Ps. ii. 7, 1xxxix. 27. On the like 
ground, kings, as we have seen in No. 4, are called sons of God, Ps. Ixxxii. 
6; 2 Sam. vii. 14, 

(cj ‘The most common use of the phrase Son of God as applied to the Mes- 
siah, is,to designate the high and mysterious relation which subsisted between 
him and God the Father, by virtue of which he was, in his complex person 
as ϑεάνϑρωσος, the ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ πα- 
τρός, Heb. i. 3, the εὐκὼν τοῦ ϑεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, Col. 1. 15; the εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ, 
2 Οὐον. iv. 4. In this respect, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ israther a name of nature {πὴ 
of office, for it is predicated of the high and glorious εἰκών, resemblance, 
similitude, which the Son exhibits of the Father, he being the radiance 
(ἀπαύγασμαλν of his glory ; sothatwhat Jesus said to Philip is true, viz., “He 
that hath seen me, hath seen the Father,” John xiv. 9. “ It hath pleased 
the Father that in him all fulness should dwell,” Cul. 1.19; even “all the 
fulness of the Godhead bodily, Col. ii.9; and that high, yea, divine honour 
should be paid to him, Phil. ii. 9—11; Rom. xiv. 11 (comp. ν. 9); Rev. v. 
13, 14; John v. 23; Heb.i. 6. As Son, Christ is lord and heir ofall things, 
Heb. i. 2, 3, 8. In particular, it would seem to be one design of the New 
Testament writers, in using the appellation Son of God, to convey the idea 
of a most intimate connexion, love, and fellowship (so to speak ) between him 
and the Father. Compare, in order to illustrate this idea, such texts as 
Matt. xi. 27; Luke x. 22; John i. 14, 18; Heb. i. 5, seq.; Matt. iii. 17; 
Luke iii. 22, ix. 35; Col. i. 138; 2 Pet. i. 17; Matt. xvii. 5; Mark i. 11, ix. 
7. Compare, also, with these last texts, the parables in Matt. xxi. 37, seq., 
xxii. 2, seq., Mark xii. 6; Luke xx. 13; also Jolin viii. 35, 36, and x. 36. 
‘Lhat God has given Christ the Spirit without measure, that he dwells in bim 
σωματικῶς, that all counsels and secrets (so to speak) of the divine nature are 
perfectly known to him (John i. 18; Matt. xi. 27; Luke x. 22 ; John vi. 46, 
vii. 29, viii. 19, xiv. 9, 10, 11, 20, x. 15); seems to be suggested by the 
appellation Son of God as frequently bestowed ; for so the texts referred to, 


EXCURSUS I. ON ROM. 1, 4. δ59 


and other like texts, would imply. In a word, similitude, affection, confi- 
dence, and most intimate connexion, seem to be designated by the appel- 
lation son, as applied to Christ. In this sense it is most frequent in the 
New Testament; although with Paul, the idea of Messianic dignity or 
elevation is more commonly designated by Κύριος. 

But while I am fully satisfied that the term Son of God is oftentimes 
applied to Christ as a name of nature, as well as of office; yet I am as fully 
satisfied, that it is not applied to him considered simply as divine, or simply 
as Logos. It designates the Θεάνθρωπος, the God-man, i. e., the complex 
person of the Messiah, in distinction from his divine nature simply con- 
sidered, or his Logos state or condition. The exceptions to this are only 
eases of such a nature, as show thatthe appellation Son of God became, by 
usage, a kind of proper name, which might be applied either to his human 
nature or to his divine one, as well as to his complex person. In just such 
a Way proper names are commonly used; e.g., Abraham usually and properly 
means, the complex person of this individual consisting of soul and body. 
But when I say, ‘Abraham is dead,’ I mean, the physical part only of Abra- 
ham is so; and when I say, ‘Abraham is alive,’ 1 mean that his immortal 
partonly isso. So in regard to the name Son of God; when I say, ‘ The 
Son of God was crucified,’ I mean that his mortal part was so; when I say, 
‘God sent his Son, the Son came out from the Father, he had glory with the 
Father before the world was,’ &c., I mean, in such cases, that the divine 
nature of the Son became incarnate, that ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε . .. ἑαυτὸν ἐταπείνωσε 
(Phil. ii. 7, 8), taking upon him the likeness of our nature. But when I 
say, with John, that “Jesus is the Son of God,” and that “Jesus Christ has 
come in the flesn,” I mean to designate his complex person, the JedvIeumoc, 
the θεὸς ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωδείς, the λόγος σὰρξ γενόμενος, and this is the case with 
most of the examples of the phrase in the New Testament. 

If a different principle of exegesis be assumed here, and we affirm that 
Christ is called Son as being divine, and is socalled in order to designate his 
originating from the Father in his divine nature; then the objections which 
may be made are of a very serious cast. ‘They are too numerous, also, to 
be fully recounted in an excursus. I can only glance at a few of them. 

(1) If Son of God necessarily implies, ex vi termini, that Christ as to his 
divine nature is derived; how shall we construe such texts as the following ; 
viz., “ What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was be- 
fore?” John vi. 62. “No man hath ascended to heaven, but he that came 
down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven,” John iii. 13. 
Does Son of Man indicate (ex vi termint) the divine nature of Christ ἢ This 
T suppose will not be affirmed; for plainly it indicates the ϑεάνϑρωπος, the 
eds ἐν σαρκὶ Paveouse/s, t. 6.7 it has of itself ἃ necessary reference to the 27- 
carnate condition of the Saviour. Yet when employed as a proper name, we 
see by the texts above that it can be used to indicate the original and d- 
vine nature of the Messiah along with his human nature. If not, then 
these texts would prove that the incarnate nature of Christ existed in hea- 
ven before he came down from that place; a fiction which we may well 
rank with the supposed rapture of Christ into heaven, and his subsequent 
descent from heaven, as maintained by Socinus. 

Now as these texts, when thus employed will not prove that the Auman 
nature of Christ had a prior existence in heaven; so neither will the other 


500 EXCURSUS I. ON ROM. T. 4. 


texts above cited prove that the appellation, Son of God, means the divine 
nature of Christ as begotten of God, merely because the Father is said to 
have loved him and to have sent him into the world. But, 

(2) If the Son as God be derived or begotten, then it must follow, that as 
God he is neither self-existent nor independent. It is of no avail’to say here, 
that his generation is e¢ernal, and that the method of it is mysterious, super- 
human, and unliketo that of any created substance; for one may very readily 
allow all this, and still ask, whether the word generation (let the manner of 
the thing be what it may) does not of necessity, and by the usage of every 
language, imply derivation ? And whether dertvation does not of necessity 
imply dependence, and therefore negative the idea of self-existence? This the 
ancient Fathers acknowledged almost with one voice, asserting that Christ 
is not αὐτόϑεος, but derivedfrom the Father, and begotten of his substance. The 
Father only they regarded as self-existent; not deeming it compatible at all 
with the idea of generation, that the Son could vindicateto himself this attri- 
bute of divinity. So the Nicene Fathers in their symbol: ϑεὸς ἐκ ϑεοῦ, φῶς 
ἐκ φωτός. ‘They did truly and really regard the Logos as an emanation from 
the Father; many of the fathers (most of the earlier ones! as an emanation 
from him which took place in time, or rather perhaps an emanation just be- 
fore time began. Hence the familiar phrase among them, λόγος ἐνδιάϑετος, 
ἃ. e., the Logos which was in God as his reason, wisdom, or understanding, 
from eternity; and λόγος προφορικός, v. 6.5 Logos prophoric, uttered, developed, 
viz., by words. This development many of them supposed was made, when 
God said, “ Let there be light;” others supposed it to have been still 
earlier, viz., at the period when God formed the plan of the world, and 
thus gave development to his internal λόγος, by the operations of his wis- 
dom and understanding. 

Prof. Tholuck, in his recent commentary on the epistle to the Romans, 
appears fully to maintain (with the ancient Fathers) the dependence, and to 
deny the se/f-existence, of the Logos; while, with them, he strenuously main- 
tains that Christ is ϑεός, But one who is so earnestly desirous of seeking 
after truth as he is, will not take it amiss, I trust, if the inquiry be here 
made: Whether the human mind cannow conceive a being to be truly God, 
whois neither self: existent nor independent? If the Son have neither ofthese 
attributes, then is he indeed what some of the Fathers have called him, a 
Θεὺς δεύτερος, and nothing more. I will not aver that those are Arians, and 
deny the divinity of Christ, who believe this; but I must say, that for myself, 
if I admitted this, I could make no serious objection to the system of Arius. 
The whole dispute between him and those who maintain this creed, must 
turn on the difference between being begotten and being made; both parties 
virtually acknowledge derivation and dependence; they differ only as to the 
time and manner of these. Can such topics as these, which of course 
must be mere mysteries, be properly made a serious occasion of division 
or alienation among those who bear the Christian name? __. 

The philosophy of the Fathers permitted them to believe in a divine nature 
derived. Of course they could maintain the generation of the Son as Logos 
without any difficulty. But that we can now admit a being to be éruly 
God, and worship him as such, who as to his divine nature is derived and 
dependent, does seem to me quite impossible. The very elements of my 
own views to say the least) respecting the divine nature must be changed, 


before I can admit such a proposition. 


EXCURSUS I. ON ROM. 1. 4. 561 


To say that the Son is eternally begotten, and yet is self-existent and inde- 
pendent, is merely to say that the word begotten does not imply derivation ; 
it is to deny that the word has any such meaning, as all antiquity and com- 
mon usage have always ascribed to it. Itis, moreover, to give up the very 
doctrine which the ancient church strenuously maintained. Tholuck, who 
appears to maintain the views of the Nicene creed, says (on Rom. ix. 5): 
“The Father is the original source of all being, 1 Cor. viii. 6; John v. 26; 
the son is only the εὐκών of his being, Col. i..15; 2 Cor. iv.4; Heb. i. ὃ. 
But as being the image of the divine Being, the Son is in no respect differ- 
ent from the Father, but fully expresses the Being of God. As the church 
is wont to say: The attribute of ἀγεννησίω is possessed only by the Father.” 
Much as I respect this excellent man and critic, how can I receive and 
accredit these declarations? ‘The Son is in o respect (in nichts) different 
from the Father, but fully (vollkommen, perfectly) resembles or expresses 
(ausdriickt) the being of God;” and yet to the Son belongs not ἀγεννησία, 
self-existence, independence, but ἀγεννησίω belongs exclusively to the 
Father!” What is this more or less than to say: The Son is perfectly like 
the Father in all respects; and yet in regard to that very attribute, which 
beyond all others united makes God to be what he is, viz., true and very 
God, 7. e., in respect to self-existence (and of course independence), the Son 
has no participation at all in this, but it belongs exclusively to the Father ! 
In other words: “The Son is in ad/ respects like the Father, with the simple 
exception that he is, in regard to the most essential of all his attributes, 
infinitely unlike him.” If this does not lie on the very face of Prof. Tho- 
luck’s statement, and on that of all who hold that the Logos is a derived 
Being, then I acknowledge myself incapable of understanding either their 
words or their arguments.* 


* In a review of the first edition of this work, in the Literar. Adzeiger for 1834, Ὁ. 171, Prof. 
Tholuck refers me to John v. 26 as decisive of the question, in favour of his views. The words 
are: “As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son also to have life in him- 
self.” On this he thus comments: “It is declared that the Father has given life to the Son, on 
the one hand: on the other, that the Son has life from himself (aus sich). The same power which 
can constitute a proper person of a human soul, which [soul] has its power of self-determination 
conferred by another, and yet exercises this power of itself, has so disposed itself also in its own 
image, i. 6., in the Son, that the latter, since his being does not differ from that of the Father, 
has life from himself? 

But in the way of this I find several difficulties. (1) Nothing can be more evident to my 
mind, than that the text in John speaks merely of a life-giving power, which the Father has in 
himself, and so can exercise it, where and when he pleases; and Jesus declares that the Father 
has bestowed this on the Son, who therefore can exercise it in the same way. So verses 21, 22, 
lead us to explain this, almost by necessity ; and so the context leads us to explain it, where the 
subject is the resurrection of the dead, not the metaphysical question of original or derived pow- 
ers and attributes of Father and Son. (2) Prof. Tholuck, in rendering ἐν ἑαυτῳ in ver. 26 by aus 
sich, out of or from himself, has departed from the tenor and sense of the text, which asserts 
the proper possession of such a power, and the uncontrollable right of exercising it at discretion, 
but avers nothing in respect to the metaphysical question now under consideration. But (3) 
The comparison of the self-determining power of a human soul with that of the Son, would only 
plunge the whole matter into the Arian gulf. Is not a human soul dependent and derived? And 
if it exercises a self-determining power, did it originate the power itself? The question is not, 
whether the Son has life in himself, but how he came by it? I take life here, not in the real sense 
of the text, viz. a life-giving power, but in the physiological or metaphysical sense of Tholuck, 
viz. as an attribute of the being of the Son. Now if the Father gave the Son (as Logos) life in 
this sense, the inevitable consequence is that the Son is derived and dependent; in which case the 
whole matter goes back to the point from which we started. 

But Tholuck in the way of further explanation says, that ‘the generation of the Son is 
necessary and eternal. The Son is as necessary to the Father as the Father to the Son; and 
the dependence (if we must so name it) mutual.” But here again I am lost in the uncer- 
tainty of words. The Fathers, as Prof. Tholuck well knows, were divided on the question 


2N 


562 Γ EXCURSUS I. ON ROM. I. 4. 


A mode of reasoning which involves such difficulties as these, should not 
be adopted without very imperious reasons. I know of no such reasons, 
unless they be drawn from the expression ὁ Yii¢ τοῦ Θεοῦ understood in a 
literal sense, 2. e., so far literal as can be possible in respect to spiritual 
beings. Now that one spiritual being can produce another, in some way 
or other (of course not more humano), will not be denied. And if Son 
necessarily imports derivation in the divine nature of the Logos, along with 
this it necessarily imports dependence; in other words, it necessarily denies 
self-existence and independence. If any one refuses to acknowledge this, 
then of course he must abandon the meaning of generation. No matter 
what the modus of generation may be, however mysterious or super-human ; 
this makes no difference as to real dependence, in case the generation is real 
and actually matter of fact. But in case we insist on preserving the term 
generation, as applied to the divine nature of the Son, and yet aver that he is 
self-existent and independent, then the diction merely of the ancient fathers 
is preserved, while the doctrine which they maintained is clearly abandoned. 

All such as cannot admit the emanation philosophy into their system of 
theology (the ancient Fathers did this), will not regard Christ as ϑεὸς δεύτε- 
206, but as ὁ dy ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς, εὐλογητὺς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν. The Logos, 
ἐς who created all things,” “ by whom all things were created in heaven and 
earth,” bears at least the highest stamp of DivinITy UNDERIVED. Who is 
self-existent if not the CREATOR? And who is God supreme, if not ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ 
πάντων Θεόςἢ If there be any higher assertions of Godhead respecting 
the Father than these, let those who ascribe self-existence only to him, 
point them out. 

The most formidable objection to the Nicenian and Athanasian Creed 
is, that it makes such a statement respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, 
as destroys the idea of full and proper equality of the persons of the God- 
head. The Son is made dependent on the Father; and the Spirit also 
dependent on the Father, according to the views and explanations of the 
Greek church, but according to the Latin one, dependent on, 7. e., proceed- 


of voluntary or necessary generation. Modern theology understands generation only of 
personality, i. e., the modus existendi of the Son, and not of his substance or essential attri- 
butes. To all this, however, the declaration of Tholuck seems to exhibit no reference. But 
supposing the matter is as he states it; then what is generation? Is it an act, or an attribute? 
Tf an act, how is an act eternal? If an attribute, then, like Origen, Tholuck must believe that 
the generation of the Son still continues and always will continue; for divine attributes must be 
eternal. After all, however, does not generation necessarily imply dependence? This cannot be 
disproved. The nature of words must first be changed. Then be the generation eternal or 
not, the Son is still dependent, according to this theory, and therefore neither self-existent nor in- 
dependent. We are still left, then, in the same predicament as before, and can find in the Logos 
only a Θεὸς δεύτερος. 

When Tholuck says, moreover, that the ‘Son kein anderes Wesen als der Vater hat, i. ¢., has a 
being that differs not from that of the Father,’ what can this mean on the ground which he takes? 
I ask whether self-~ewistence and independence are predicable of the Son, if we concede for once 
that as divine he is begotten? What matters it whether the generation is eternal or in time? 
The question respects not modus, but res. Derivation is inevitably attached to the idea of 
begotten, present it in what shape you will; and then sel/-existence and independence of course 
cease to be predicable of the Logos. How then is he not a different—yea, immeasurably differ- 
ent—being from the Father? 

Nor is the matter helped by averring, as Tholuck does, that ‘the Son is as necessary to the 
Father as the Father to the Son.’ This would merely show, if it were true, that neither is self- 
existent or independent, but that each depended on something not strictly belonging to himself, 
either for his being or for an essential modification of it. But howcan the sun be dependent on 
its rays? We may say, it would be no sun if it gave mo light; and it would be true that it 
would not be such a sun as we now conceive of. But to say that the radiance of the sun is no 
more dependent on the sun itself than the sun is on its radiance, would be saying what can be 
justified only by resorting to metaphysical subtilties in defining and reasoning. 


EXCURSUS Il. ON ROM, 111. 28. 563 


ing from, both the Father and Son. The Son then has not two capacities or 
faculties which the Father has, viz., that of begetting and causing proces- 
sion, as the Greek church would haveit; andthe Spirit is in like manner 
wanting as to both of these capacities. According to the Latin church, 
the Spirit is also wanting as to one capacity which the Son has, viz., that 
of causing procession. Nowif God is every where in the Bible recognized 
as supreme and only God, because he is creator of the world, and all com- 
petition of those called gods is treated with scorn, because they cannot 
compare with him here; then how immeasurably more exalted still must 
the Father be above the Son and:Spirit, if he is the ground or cause of 
their being, the fons et principium of Godhead itself! Arianism itself has 
-placed the Son and Spirit too near the Father, if there be such an im- 
measurable discrepance between them as there must be between beings 
derived and dependent, and self-existent and independent. 

This, however, is not the place to enlarge on this topic; and it is the less 
necessary, inasmuch as I have discussed the subject at length in an Essay 
in the Bib. Repository, Nos. 18, 19, 1835, where I have commented on 
Schleiermacher’s comparison of the Sabellian and Athanasian Creeds 


EXCURSUS IL 


On Rom. ii. 28, λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθωι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρις ἔργα 
νόμου (pp. 159, 160). 


Τὸ will be conceded at once, that before we pronounce sentence respect- 
ing the agreement or disagreement of Paul and James with respect to the 
᾿ doctrine of justification, it is necessary that we should understand the 
meaning of the words which they respectively employ, and the nature of 
the objeet which they respectively have in view. 

First, then, what does Paulassert? He says that “a man is justified by 
faith, χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου. The inquiry is fundamental, therefore, What does 
he mean by ἔργων νόμου ? | 

I answer: He means works which the law requires, works which the law 
makes it duty to perform. 'That the Gen. case after ἔργον is sometimes 
employed to express such a relation, there can be no room for doubt; 6. g., 
John vi. 28, 29, ἔργα Θεοῦ works which God requires; John ix. 4, σὰ ἔργα 
σοῦ πέμψαντός με, the works required by him who sent me; Acts xxvi. 20, 
μετανοίας ἐργώ, works such as repentance demands; 1 Thess. i. 3, τοῦ ἔργοῦ 
τῆς πίστεως, the works which faith requires ; and 2 Thess.i.11, ἐργὸν πίστεως, 
in the same sense. 

In like manner, éeyov νόμου and ἔργα νόμου mean work cr works which 
the luwdemands. So the phrase is plainly used in Rom. ii. 15; iii. 20, 28; 
ix. 82; Gal. 11, 16 (thrice); iii. 2, 5, 10. Sometimes γόμου is omitted, 
and ἔργον is used alone in the same sense, breviloguentie causa; ὁ. g., Rom. 
iv. 6; ix, 12; xi. 6 (thrice); Eph. ii. 9. 

What works, then, does the law of God require? The answer is: It de- 
mands perfect obedience. “The soul that sinneth shall die.” “ Cursed is he 
who continueth not in all things written in the book-of the law, to do them.” 

It is manifestly on this ground that Paul argues the impossibility of 


564 EXCURSUS II. ON ROM. 111. 98, 


justification by works oflaw. In Rom. iii. 19, when summing up his argu- 
ment contained in the preceding part of his epistle, he says: ‘‘ The whole 
world is guilty before God,” @. e., all men are chargeable with the guilt of 
sin. Whatfollows? The apostle tells us in ver. 20: διότι, x. τ. Avy Lhere- 
fore by works of law no flesh can be justified before God. 

Must not this be true? Ifthe law of God demands perfect obedience, 
and its penalty is attached to every sin, then one sin ruins the hopes of 
man, and effectually debars him from justification before God, on the 
ground of merit or obedience. 

The apostle Paul disputes with those who denied this, and who expected 
justification on the ground of their own meritorious obedience; comp. ix. 
80, 31; x. 3; also Gal. ii. 16; 111. 8—13; Rom. iv. 4, 5. To say, then, 
that a man ts not justified by works of law, is (with him) the same as saying, 
that he cannot be justified meritoriously,t e., on the ground of merit or obedi- 
ence, Rom.iv.5. But as faith in Jesus Christ, who died to procure mercy 
for sinners so that they might be pardoned and accepted, does from its very 
nature involve the renunciation of claims to merit, and the casting of our- 
selves on him for gratuitous justification; so the apostle opposes the being 
justified by faith to the being justified by works of law, the former meaning 
(with him) gratuztous justification, the latter meritorious. Let the reader 
now carefully and diligently compare Rom. iv. 4, 5, 14—16; ix. 6; Gal. 
v. 4; iii. 11, 12, and he can entertain no doubt of the correctness of this 
representation. 

We have then before us the object of Paul, in declaring that a man is 
not justified by works oflaw It is the same thing as to say, ‘ No oneis 
accepted with God on the ground of merit or perfect obedience to the law, 
for no one has ever done all which the law requires.’ 

But does this involve the idea, that Paul maintains GOOD WORKS (ἐργα 
zyabau) to be unnecessary for a Christian? Nothing could be farther from 
his intention. Are not his epistles filled with the most urgent exhortations 
to Christians, that they should be fruitful in good works? Compare now, 
for a moment, Rom. ii. 7; 2 Cor. ix. 8; Eph. ii. 10; Col. i. 105 iii. 17; 
1 Thess. v. 18: 2 Thess. ii. 17; 1 Tim. ii. 10; v. 10 (twice); ν. 253 vi. 
18; 2 Tim. ii. 21; iii. 17; Tit.i. 16; ii. 7, 14; iii. 1,8, 14, etc. Compare 
the strain of Paul’s reasoning in Rom. vi.—viii.; and then say, is it possi- 
ble to doubt, for a moment, that Paul urged good works as strenuously as 
James, or as any other apostle ? 

Let the reader mark well, that ἐργα νόμου, and ἐργὰ ἄγαθά or ἐργον 
πίστεως (1 Thess. i. 8; 2 Thess. i. 11), aretwo very different things; differ- 
ent not so much in their own nature, strictly considered, as in the use 
which Paul makes of them in his writings. With him, ἐργα νόμου always 
designates the idea of perfect obedience, viz., doing all which the law re- 
quires. But éeya ἄγαθα or égya πίστεως are the fruits of sanctification by 
the Spirit of God; the good works which Christians perform, and which 
are sincere, are therefore acceptable to God under a dispensation of grace, 
although they do not fulfil all the demands of the law. On the ground of 
the first, Paul earnestly contends, at length, in his epistles to the Romans 
and Galatians, that no one can be justified, The latter he every where 
treats as indispensable to the Christian character, 

In a word, when Paul is contending with a degalist, 7. e., one who ex- 
pected justification on the ground of his own merit, he avers that justifica- 


EXCURSUS II. ON ROM. Ut. 28. 565 


tion by works of law or perfect obedience, is impossible. But when he is 
addressing Christians, he tells them that good works are absolutely essen- 
tial to the Christian character. 

2. Come we then, in the second place, to inquire what is the meaning 
and object of the apostle James, in chap. ii. 14—26. 

He commences by asking: “ Of what avail is it, my brethren, if a man 
say he have faith, and have not works?” It is then with those who make 
pretensions to Christian faith, and mere pretensions, that the apostle has to 
do. This is clear from the closing verse in the paragraph: “ For as the 
body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.” .. 

The characters, then, which the apostle James has in view, are of a 
kind directly opposite to those with which St. Paul was concerned. James 
is disputing with Antinomians, viz., such persons as held that mere specula- 
tive belief or faith, unaccompanied by works, was all whichthe gospel de- 
mands. He tells them that this is not the case, and cannot be. He appeals 
to the examples of Abraham and Rahab, in order to confirm the sentiment 
which he avows; and asks, whether the faith which they possessed'did not 
co-operate with works, when they were justified. 7 

Observe now, that James does not once mention ἔργα νόμου. This is 
not the subject which he has in view. It is éeya πίστεως, and these only, 
of which he treats ; comp. verses 17, 22, 26. 

Mark again, that James does not at all maintain that faith is not essen- 
tial to justification. He expressly admits that Abraham’s faith co-operated 
with his works, and was perfected by them, ver. 22. Nay, he appeals to 
the very same passage of Scripture, in confirmation of this, which Paul 
appeals to in Rom. iv. 3, when establishing the doctrine of gratuitous justi- 
fication. The work of Abraham which James mentions, is recorded in 
Gen. xxii-; and it took place some 30 years after the words were spoken 
to him, which are quoted in ver. 22. By this work (viz., of offering up 
his son), Abraham “perfected his faith,” and “fulfilled the Scripture which 
says: Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteous- 
ness,” verses 22, 23. In other words: ‘The faith of Abraham was in- 
separable from good works. It shone out in the most conspicuous manner 
by them. .And in like manner did the faith of Rahab exhibit itself’ 

James, then, maintains that no man has any good claim to the faith of 
a Christian, who does not at the same time exhibit good works; in other 
words, he avers that a mere speculative faith is nota real Christian faith. 

When thus understood and considered, how can he be regarded as con- 
tradicting what Paul has said ? Paul maintains that men are justified gra- 
tuitously, in opposition to legal or meritorious justification. James main- 
tains that a man cannot be justified by a speculative and barren faith, but 
that he must have such a faith as will produce good works. Paul is so far 
from denying that Christian faith must produce good works, that he every 
where strenuously maintains the necessity of them. James insists upon 
it, that a man, in order to be justified, must exhibit good works as well as 
faith; and that these are essential, in order to complete and perfect his 
faith. Where, then, is the contradiction ? 

Luther, however, thought that he found it; and he rejected the epistle 
of James from the canon of the New Testament.on this ground, calling it 
epistola straminea. So did the Magdeburg Centuriators; and not a few 
recent commentators have alleged, that James contradicts what Paul teaches, 


566 EXCURSUS III. ON ROM. V. 12. 


But where has Paul taught that a man is justified by faith alone; and that 
evangelical good works are not an essential condition of his justification 
before God ? I cannot find this doctrine in his epistles or in his discourses. 
To say that he has maintained the doctrine of justification without the deeds 
OF THE LAW is saying nothing to the purpose; for the meaning of this, as 
above explained, contains nothing in opposition to what James has taught. 

In a word, Paul has taught us, that justification is not on the ground of 
merit, but of grace: James has taught us, that a faith which will entitle 
one to hope for justification, must be accompanied with evangelical obedi- 
ence. Both are true and faithful teachers; the doctrines of both are equally 
doctrines of the gospel. G'ood works, in the gospel sense of these words. 
are an essential condition of our acceptance with God; but on the ground 
of perfect obedience to the divine law, no one ever was or will be accepted. 

For a more ample-discussion of the subject of this Excursus, the reader 
may consult the dissertation by Dr. Knapp, Bib. Repos. III., pp. 189 seq.; 
and also the recent one by C Fromann, Bib. Repos. IV., pp. 683 seq. ; 
where he will find references to various writings on this subject, and an 
examination of the arguments of those who hold that James intended to 
gainsay some of the declarations of Paul. 


EXCURSUS III. 


On ϑάνατος in Rom. v. 12 (pp. 209, 210). 


Amone some of the older commentators, and even among some very 
distinguished recent and living ones, e.7., Flatt, Schott, Reiche, and others, 
the position has been strongly asserted, that Savarog can here mean only 
the death of the body. Reiche has summed up the arguments ; and we 
may therefore consider briefly his reasons. (1) ‘ No explanation added to 
Sdévaros leads us to suppose the literal and usual meaning is not to be here 
admitted.’ But in verses 15—19, an antithesis to ϑάνατος, or (what is of 
the same import) to χρίωα, κάτακριμα, &¢., Shows beyond all reasonable 
question that the death is such an one as is the opposite of reigning in life 
and of justification unto life. Can this be mere temporal death? (2) ‘The 
connexion leads us to construe ϑάνατος as meaning éemporal death only.’ 
And what is this? It is, that in ver. 10 ϑάνατος is used to designate the 
physical death of Christ. Can Prof. Reiche show us that ϑάνατος is capa- 
ble of any other meaning, as applied to Christ? And because the apostle 
from necessity uses the term /teradly in one case, can he not employ it in 
a secondary or tropical sense in another ? Especially cannot Paul be sup- 
posed todo this, whoso often employs thesame word in different senses, even 
in the same sentence? (3) ‘ Paul elsewhere considers physical death as a 
great evil or enemy, which Christ came to destroy.’ He appeals to Rom. 
vi. 21 in proof of this ; an unfortunate appeal, inasmuch as the antithesis 
in ver. 22 is ζωὴ αἰώγιος; also to 2 Tim. i. 9 (which says nothing concern- 
ing the subject); also to 2 Cor.y. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 54, which relate to the re- 
surrection. But what should lead Paul or others to suppose, that because 
Christ liberates the body from its death, he does not liberate the soul also 
from the death that has befallen it? Or how can the proof that Christ 


EXCURSUS III. ON ROM. V. 12. 567 


does one thing, prove that he does not perform another, provided it be not 
the opposite of the first? Or how can it be shown, that because ϑάνωτος 
sometimes designates the death of the body, that it never designates the 
death of the soul? (4) ‘The apostle speaks according to Jewish views 
merely; and the Jews held that ¢emporal death was introduced by Adam.’ 
The answer to this is, that the Jews of his time probably did believe that 
temporal death was connected with Adam’s fall; as Wisd. i. 13, ii. 24; 
Sirac. xxv. 24, xli. 8, would seem to show. Yet to this hour, so far as the 
efforts of the learned are concerned, no uniform and consistent views among 
the Rabbins are made out. Vitringa (Observ. Sac. III. 8, 9), Siisskind 

_ (Magaz. St. 13), Bartoloccius (Biblioth. Rabb. V. II. pp. 47 seq.), and 

others, have maintained that the.Rabbins reject the common doctrine of 
connexion with Adam and derivation of evil trom him; while many others 
(as Tholuck, Reiche, and many quoted by them) endeavour to show that 
they held, either that our temporal death was occasioned by Adam’s fall, 
or that our moral corruption and physical death both sprung from him; 
for both of these opinions are avowed among the Rabbins. But what has 
all this to do with the meaning of Paul? He might assert what was gene- 
rally believed by the Jews of his day in relation to the point in question, 
or he might contradict what they believed. In his epistle he has often 
done both, in respect to many points. He must be left, then, to be ex- 
plained by himself, and by the general nature of the Scriptural idiom; 
which does not here decide for temporal death only. (5) ‘The exegesis 
which explains Sdévarog as meaning αἰέ evil of every kind, mixes the figura- 
tive and literal together, and therefore is imprebable.’ Then ga4, which 
means (in its secondary sense) happiness, and implies continued life at the 
same time, is improperly used; and every word whose ¢ropical sense is en- 
larged beyond its literal one while it is built upon it, is wrongly employed. 
How far can we proceed in the interpretation of Scripture on such a 
ground as this? 

Such are the arguments by which the usual exegesis is assailed. Let us 
see what is said by the assailants, in answer to arguments adduced upon 
the other side of the question. (a) ‘Physical death is not removed by 
Christ; it is still universal.’ To this Reiche answers, that ‘it is not indeed 
removed; but it will be at the resurrection; and it will be abolished even 
here, at Christ’s second coming [viz., to reign on earth].’ That is, the 
mischiefs of temporal death will in some way be repaired; but those mis- 
chiefs are not prevented. Is this all then that verses 15—19 mean? (ὦ) 
‘ Eternal life in ver. 21 is the antithesis of ϑάνατος, which therefore must 
mean something besides the death of the body.’ To this Reiche replies, 
that eternal life is merely the reunion hereafter of body and soul, and their 
continued existence. If it be urged that happiness is meant by life, then, 
he says, we may reply, that the blessings procured by Christ are much 
greater than the mischief occasioned by Adam, which was mere temporal” 
death; see verses 15, 16. But on this I would remark, that the excess of 
the blessings as specificated by the apostle, has reference to the evils oc- 
casioned by oze sin, and to the forgiveness extended to many; which is a 

_ different view of the subject from that which Reiche gives. (6) Finally 
Jdvarog δεύτερος in Apoc. ii. 11, al., is disposed of by Reiche, by saying, 
that ‘it may mean (according to the Rabbins) a second actual death of the 
body after the first resurrection; or if it does not mean this, we cannot 
conclude from the mode of expression (ϑάνατος δεύτερος) what simple 3 %yx- 


568 EXCURSUS III ON ROM. V. 12. 


τὸς Must mean.’ But to me it seems the reverse. The writer of the Apo- 
calypse, in order to remove all doubt respecting his meaning, when he 
mentions Jdévaros as the reward of sin, adds δεύτερος for this very purpose. 

I am well aware that the passage in 1 Cor. xv. 22, ‘‘ For as in Adam all 
die, so in Christ shall all be made alive,” has often been adduced, in order 
to show that Sdévarog in the passage before us means only the death of the 
body. But with Toellner and Koppe I may venture to say, that because, 
in discussing the subject of the resurrection (the resurrection of Christians 
only), the apostle represents Adam as having introduced the death of the 
body, it does not follow, that in another epistle, when treating of quite a 
different topic, and intending to show the full extent of the benefits pro- 
cured by the death of Christ, he could rot employ Sévarog in its most ex- 
tensive latitude. Avove all, this does not follow, when it is quite certain, 
that in the context of this last named epistle, and elsewhere, Paul does be- 
yond all doubt employ ϑάνατος in its most enlarged sense. It lies, more- 
over, on the face of the whole antithesis which he makes in verses 12—-19, 
that his object is to exalt the d:xaiwua of Christ, by showing the greatness 
of the κατάκριμα from which he delivers us, and which was occasioned by 
Adam. But how is this object effected in any important measure, in case 
Θάνατος means no more than the dissolution of our mortal bodies? a thing, 
by the way, from which none are at all delivered. 

On-the whole, I regard the case as one which scarcely admits of a doubt 
on the ground of philology, or of the first principles of theology. When 
Adam sinned, death,was threatened. Now is the death of the body the 
only penalty of sin? If not, then more was meant than this; and the 
most rational exegesis seems to be that which we are 80 often obliged 
elsewhere to adopt, viz., that evel of every kind was threatened. In regard 
to the ϑάνατος which came upon the posterity of Adam, it was of the same 
nature; it was fully inflicted, or rather the penalty fully attached, where 
they actually sinned, as ver. 12 itself shows; and even where they did not 
actually sin, there was subjection still to death in as high a measure as the 
nature of the case admitted. 

Mr. Barnes, in his recent work on the Romans, maintains that the penalty 
in question was spiritwalas wellas temporal death ; but hethinks that Adam, 
from his inexperience and the novelty of his state, could not have known the 
extent of the penalty, or have supposed it to be more than temporal death. 
But there are several difficulties in the way of this supposition. How can 
we conceive of Adam and Eve, just come from the hands of their Creator, 
who made all things to be “very good,” as being inferior in respect to under- 
standing or as to any human perfection which does not depend merely on 
experience? Spontaneously am I led to regard these as the very beau rdeal 
of the human race. Then, moreover, Adam could no more have been 
fully acquainted with the death of the body, at that time, than of the soul. 
That he did not know the fud/ extent of the evil threatened, we may admit; 
for who of our race now living knows this, after all the light that has 
been given? But that he knew what death meant, in a sense like to that 
in which we now know what eternal death means, I must suppose from the 
very nature of the case. How would it consist with the integrity and 
open dealing of the legislator, to conceal from his subjects the main part 
of the evil which they would incur by disobedience? The death of the 
soul, as meaning the extinction of it, we cannot suppose Adam to have 


‘ 


EXCURSUS III. ON ROM. V. 12. 569 


believed, unless he was left to be grossly ignorant of his own nature, Nor 
can we well suppose him to have been left unacquainted with the very 
highest motive to obedience, so far »s penalty is concerned; I mean the 
evil to body and soul, consequent upon disobedience. In a word, his own 
accountability, immortality, and exposure to misery by sinning—exposure 
to continued misery—we must suppose to have been revealed to him, 
unless we maintain that the Creator withheld from him who was made in 
his own image the first elements of moral knowledge, and also kept out of 
his view powerful motives to continue in a state of obedience. How can 
we consistently make such a supposition ? 

_ Another difficulty in respect to the present subject deserves notice before 
we leave it. It is suggested by the following statement: ‘If the miseries 
of the present life and the death of the body be a part of the penalty 
threatened to Adam, then the subject is implicated in difficulties like to 
those which have been already suggested; for if these be a part of the 
penalty of sin, how can that penalty be contrasted with the deliverance 
which Christ has effected, inasmuch as he has not effected a deliverance from 
the evils just named? Must not the miseries of the present life, then, and 
physical death, be wholly excluded from the penalty originally threatened ?” 

Some have been led to exclude them by this or the like train of reason- 
ing; and especially because, as our context abundantly asserts, the bless- 
ings procured by Christ do greatly exceed the evils occasioned by Adam’s 
sin. Such being the case, they conclude that the death of Christ must of 
course remove the very same evils, in all respects, which were threatened 
in the original penalty; and as temporal evils and the death of the body 
still remain, and are universal, they cannot admit that they were included 
in the death threatened to Adam. 

But in reply to this I would remark, that it does by no means follow, 
that even those who become the subjects of redemption are to suffer none 
of the evils threatened against sin. The question, What would be the best 
means of training up men, who should be always sinless on earth, for the 
glory of the heavenly world? is something quite different fromthe question, 
How are sinners to be disciplined, in order that they may become fitted, and 
best fitted, for the happiness of heaven? A part of the discipline of the 
latter, (infinite wisdom has so decided it) must now necessarily be suffering 
and ¢rea/; and as included in this, we may also count the death of the 
body. Paul himself has told us, in the very chapter under consideration, 
that the children of God have reason to rejoice in afflictions, inasmuch as 
they result in patience, approbation, and hope, verses 3, 4; and again 
he says, that “‘our momentary [temporal ] afflictions work out for us a far 
more exceeding and eternal weight of glory,” 2 Cor. iv. 17; and again, 
that “all things will work together for good, to those who-love God,” 
Rom. viii. 28. So far as bodily suffering is concerned, for the time being, 
Christians may suffer as severely as others; and oftentimes they may be 
the subjects of severe mental as well as bodily sorrows; but all this finally 
promotes their spiritual benefit. Here then is the immense difference which 
Christ has made, between the effect of their sufferings and that of the 
suffering of the wicked. So far as misery in the present life is concerned, 
Christians may indeed undergo and do suffer some portion of that which 
the penalty of the law threatens; they are truly made to taste how bitter 
a thing it is to have sinned against God, and how dreadful the consc- 


570 EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. V. 14. 


quences of sin would be, if:they should be subjected tothemall. But still, 
this lesson is by divine mercy made highly salutary, both in weaning them 
from sin, and in preparing them for glory. ‘To repeat the words of the 
apostle: ‘All things work together for their good.” In a word, although 
a portion of the penalty of sin (in the modified way just described), is the 
necessary result in every case of having sinned; yet as Christ redeems us 
from immeasurably the greater part of the penalty, and makes that part 
of it which Christians do suffer, subservient to their own good; above all, 
since he saves us from every evil which appropriately belongs to the 
second death, no valid objection can be made against the declaration, that 
the blessings which the Redeemer procures, do not only exceed the evils 
introduced by the offence of Adam and consequent upon it, but also that 
the salvation which he has wrought is an effectual antidote against the 
curse of the law. Even the small part of this which the believer (as hav- 
ing once been asinner) must necessarily undergo, ὃ, e., the evils which in 
the present life he must suffer, is, as we have seen, converted into a means 
of spiritual good to him. This is sufficient then to justify the assertion, 
that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law. It isnot necessary, 
that all and every particular of this curse should be included in such an 
assertion; it is enough that the very sufferings which Christians undergo, 
i, e., so much of the curse as they do suffer, prove at last to be only 
“blessings in disguise.” 

But if ¢emporal death merely constitutes the whole of the threatening to 
Adam, or the main part of it, then has the death of Christ failed to 
accomplish the end which Paul asserts it to have accomplished, inasmuch 
as all men without distinction are still subjected to it. Viewing this death, 
however, as only a very subordinate and inferior part of the evil threatened 
to our first parents; and reflecting that even this is made the occasion of 
discipline, which ends in good ; we may without any serious embarrassment 
maintain with Paul, that the death of Christ has been the cause of bless- 
ings which greatly superabound over the miseries occasioned by the fall. 

The deeply interesting nature of the subject, the difficulties attending 
it, and the efforts of numerous commentators, among whom are some 
highly respected ones, to establish that interpretation of ϑάνατος which 
assigns to it the meaning of temporal death only, are my apology for dwell- 
ing so long on the topics which this word suggests. 


EXCURSUS IV. 
On τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος τῇ Rom. v. 14 (pp. 234—236. 


In making additiona: remarks upon τύπος, I observe, (1) That the 
comparison, from its very nature and design, is in the way of CoNnTRAST. 
Adam was the cause of sin and death; Christ of righteousness and life: these 
are the simple elements of the contrast. The apostle himself gives notice, 
immediately after he says that Adam was a τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος, that he 
does not mean a type of something ¢he same in hind, but an antithetic type, 
or one in the way of contrast; for he immediately subjoins: ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς 
Th παράπτωμα, He Te Ae 

(2) The same measure or degree of influence in bringing ev’? upon men, 


EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM V. 57L 


is not to be attributed to the first Adam, as is to be attributed to the 
second in respect to bringing grace and salvation ; ἡ χάρις ... ἐπερίσσευσε---- 
τὸ κρίμα ἐξ ἑνὸς [παραπτώματος] εἰς κατάκριμα, τὸ δὲ χάρισμα ἐκ πολλῶν παρα- 
πτωμάτων εἰς δικαίωμα ; and this last sentiment is virtually repeated again 
in ver. 17. Nothing can be clearer than this makes it, that the blessings 
of redemption predominate over the mischiefs occasioned by the fall, yea, 
greatly superabound. The measure or degree then of mischief and of 
benefit, are not what constitutes the τύπος in the case under consideration. 

(3) Is it then, as I have stated in the commentary (p. 235), the extent 
of the evil on the oneside, and of the good on the other, which is a point 
of resemblance held up by the apostle? That is, does he insist that the 
mischiefs of the fall on the one side, and the blessings of redemption on 
the other, pertain in any sense to our whole race without exception? <A 
deeply interesting question, and one on which hang some very important 
deductions. In answer to it, 1 would observe. 

(a) That all Adam’s race do suffer more or less evil in consequence of 
the fall; all have at least lost the original state of inclination to righteous- 
ness which belonged to our first parents, and all are subjected more or less 
to evil of some kind or other, even without their concurrence, and before 
any voluntary transgression. All come into the world in such a state as 
makes it certain that their appetites which lead to sin will prevail, and that 
they will never have any real holiness until they are born again. Others 
would go still further, and say, that all are born with a positively evil dis- 
position, which is itself sin, and one of the greatest of all sins, inasmuch 
as it is the parent of all transgression; that men have by the fall Jost their 
freedom to do good, but not to do evil; and that all men, antecedent to 
any moral choice or action of their own, are condemned to everlasting 
death, on the ground that they inherit both Adam’s crime and punishment. 
But without entering now into a discussion of these last points (for which 
the present is not the appropriate place), I would merely observe, that 2 
some way or other, and in a way which hasan important bearing on thechar- 
acter and miseries of the human race, Adam’s offence has affected them all. 

(6) As the counterpart of this, it may with equal truth be said, that the 
blessings procured by Christ affect ali the human race without exception, in 
some important respects. 'The suspension of the execution of the original 
sentence upon Adam, saved our race from immediate destruction. All the 
good that comes to sinners, the blessings of providence and of grace, the 
light of truth, the forbearance of God to punish—in a word, all the means 
of grace and the offers of mercy, the new dispensation under which “ God 
can be just, and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus” —are all 
the fruit of Christ’s great and glorious work. Manyof these blessings are 
common to all, and the whole of them are proffered to all, without distinc- 
tion. So far then we may truly say, the mischiefs on the one side and 
the blessings on the other are co-extensive with the human race; and this, 
antecedent to or independently of any acts which are properly their own. 

(c) But it isimportant also to note thatthere are spiritual blessings, 2. δ.) 
actual pardon and justification, which do not come upon all men without 
distinction, but only on those who believe. These blessings are indeed: 
proffered to all; they are open to all; they are accessible to all. But they 
are not actually conferred on all; they are not actually possessed and en- 
joyed, except by believers ; for he who believeth shall be saved, and he who 


572 EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. Y. 14. 


believeth not shall be damned. It is necessary, then,.in order to become an 
actual partaker of these blessings, to believe ;.2. e., the acts of penitence and 
faith, acts which are our own, are the conditions of enjoying these highest 
blessings of the gospel, conditions without which they cannot be enjoyed. 

And now—the other part of the contrast ; which will not, perhaps, be so 
easily conceded by many of myreaders. Doesthe ultimate and highest part 
of the sentence of death, the second death, ἡ. e., future misery, which was 
threatened to Adam, actually come on all his posterity without any act of 
their own, without any real and personal concurrence with the sin of their 
ancestor? So the apostle does not say; for he says that “ death passed 
through upon all men, because that all have sinned; 7. e., (as we have seen 
above), in their own persons. But you will say that the apostle affirms, 
in ver. 19, that “by the disobedience of Adam the many, ἡ, 6.) all, werecon- 
stituted sinners.” I grant this; I believe fully what this passage affirms 
But to say that Adam’s disobedience was an occasion or ground or instru- 
mental cause of all men’s becoming sinners (which I must verily believe is 
the meaning of this declaration), and that it was thus an evil to them all; 
and to say that his disobedience was personally theirs, or was reckoned or 
imputed as being personally theirs; is saying two very different things. I 
see no way in which this last assertion can be made out by philology. 

Besides ; how utterly unlike, in this last case, would be the points of 
comparison? It is plain that none can enjoy the higher blessings procur- 
ed by Christ without the personal and voluntary acts of repentance and 
faith; does it not seem equally true, now, that none will actually suffer the 
higher penalties of the curse threatened to Adam, without their own volun- 
tary transgression? If this be not the true state of the case, how can the 
superabounding of grace, asserted so repeatedly in verses 15—17, be in any 
way defended? If we say that sentence of eternal perdition, in its high- 
est sense, comes actually upon all men by the offence of Adam; and this 
without any act on their part, or even any voluntary concurrence in their 
present state aud condition of existence; then, in order to make grace 
superabound over all this, how can we avoid the conclusion, that justifica- 
tion in its highest sense comes upon all men without their concurrence? 

I am aware, indeed, that many commentators have considered Adam as 
being here produced by the apostle as the representative of a// the human 
race, and Christ as the representative of only the elect. But this latter 
position at least seems to me to be forbidden by the nature and design of 
the contrast, as well as by the language in which it is expressed; see the 
discussion on this point, p. 239 seq. Nor is there any need of resorting 
to this construction, if we take into view the suggestions above, viz, that 
on the one hand blessings are proffered to all, blessings much greater than 
the evils occasioned by the fall, which blessings still can be actually enjoyed 
only through repentance and faith ; while on the other hand, eternal death 
is before all, z. e., all are exposed to it from their condition and circum- 
stances, but some personal act, ἐν e., some actual sin, must precede it. I 
see not well how to escape from this conclusion, unless we give up a part 
of the superabounding of the grace of the gospel, or else take the position 
that Christ is here presented as merely the head of the elect. But how 
can the first be given up, when the apostle so often asserts it? And how 
can the last be received, without doing violence to the laws of interpreta- 
tion, and to the nature of the contrast presented ? 


EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. V. 14. 573 


In regard to the superabounding of the grace of the gospel, it must: be 
particularly noted, in order to avoid mistake, that I do not construe it as 
appertaining to the number of its subjects, but to the number of offences 
forgiven by it, ὁ, 6.7 the actual greatness of evil removed by it. It is a point 
perfectly clear, that the superabounding cannot consist in the number of 
subjects to whom grace is extended; for the evils of Adam’s fall extend to 
all his race without exception, and how can the grace of Christ extend to 
more than all? This makes it clear, that the superabounding has reference 
to the forgiveness of the many offences which men commit, and which ex- 
pose them to far greater evils than the ove offence of Adam does ; as itis 
asserted by the apostle in ver. 16. 

There is one other point, also, which should not be omitted in this re- 
ference to the superabounding of the grace of the gospel. This is, that the 
gospel places all men under a dispensation of grace, where penitent sinners 
can be pardoned and accepted; while a dispensation of law (such was that 
under which Adam was first placed), subjects them to its penalty without 
reprieve, for the first offence which they commit. It cannot escape notice, 
then, that we are now, notwithstanding the numerous and dreadful evils 
occasioned by the fall, under a far more favourable dispensation in respect 
to an opportunity for making sure our final happiness, than we should have 
been by being placed in the original condition of Adam. Pres. Edwards has" 
taken great pains in his book on Original Sin (p. 324 seq.), to justify God’s 
dealings with Adam’s posterity, in charging Adam’s sin upon them, by 
endeavouring to show that mankind had a most favourable trial in Adam, 
and one which was much more likely in the nature of things to result in 
their good, than if each had stood upon his own trial. Now if there be 
any foundation for this, and indeed if we simply admit that each in a state 
of innocence must have been tried as Adam was, then the fact that he fell, 
and the conclusion thence to be deduced by analogy that they would fall, 
seems to render it pretty certain, that the whole of our race would have 
been involved in final and irretrievable ruin by being placed und alaw 
dispensation, as Adam first was. Grace superabounds, then, above the evils 
of the fall, in that Adam lost for men only an innocent lega/ state—one in 
which men were on trial, and from which they might fall; while Christ has 
procured for them a dispensation of grace, under which many and aggra- 
vated offences are no bar to the salvation of the penitent. 

I speak of a legal state in which men were to be on trial, because I am 
not able to find one text of Scripture, nor any good reason, to support the 
idea, that if Adam had obeyed, all his posterity would have been born in 
a state not only of perfect, but of confirmed holiness. Where is one sen- 
tence in all the book of God which declares this? And how is any argu- 
ment to be obtained from analogy? Theangelshave had their trial, and some 
of them “kept not their first estate.” The first human pair had their trial, 
when directly from the hands of their Maker; and they fell. But suppos- 
ing they had not fallen, is there any ground to expect that their posterity 
would have been born in a condition Jetter than that in which the first 
pair were created? As far as we know any thing of the history of rational 
beings, so far it is clear, that it is an indispensable rule of divine moral 
government, that all should be subject to a state of trial. If then the views 
of Pres. Edwards and others in relation to this subject are unsupported 
either by the Scriptures or by analogy, how can we admit them? It is 
not. enough to appeal to symbols and to systems of divinity in such a case; 


574 EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. VY. 14. 


nor to argue ad verecundiam, by reciting the names of such as have pa- 
tronized a view of the subject like that which has now been examined. 
We must have Scripture, and argument drawn from it, and then we will 
cheerfully yield our assent. 

IT return from this partial digression, however, and observe, that in re- 
gard to the extent of mischief on the one hand, and of blessings on the 
other, in the case under examination, so much is clear, viz., that a loss of 
an original state in which a predominant disposition to holiness existed; 
an imperfect state or condition of our nature, in which it is certain that 
the sensual passions will get the victory and lead us to sin, and certain that 
we shall never have any holiness without being born again; and also a 
subjection to many temporal trials and distresses; are evils brought upon 
all men by the fall—and on all without any distinction, and without any 
act or concurrence of their own. ‘The opposite to this is, that men are 
placed by Christ under a dispensation in which they can be redeemed from 
the power and penalty of their sins (with the exception that more or less 
of evil is, and as things now are must be, temporarily experienced in the 
present world); and that all men enjoy the bounties of Providence, the 
calls of mercy, and the offers of eternal life; and thus much, without any 
act or concurrence of their own. This goes far towards satisfying all the 
demands which the nature of the apostle’s comparison.requires. Indeed, 
we might rest satisfied with this. All men have indeed experienced evil, 
in consequence of Adam’s full; but on the whole all men now are placed, 
notwithstanding all the evils which they suffer, in a better situation to 
secure their final happiness, than Adam was in his original state of trial, 
when the consequence of one offence was irremedvable death. 

If then the τύπος of the apostle is to be understood as having reference 
merely to evils and blessings that come on all Adam’s posterity wethout any 
concurrence or voluntary act of their own, we may find sufficient here to 
answer the demands of a rimog. But if any insist that the meaning shall 
be extended still farther, and be regarded as having respect to the heghest 
penalty on the one hand, and the highesé blessings on the other; then, in 
order to make out a real and true parallel, we must suppose that neither 
is the one inflicted, nor the other bestowed, without the free and voluntary 
concurrence of each individual, who sins and suffers for himself or on his 
own account, or repents and believes for himself so as to receive the high- 
est blessings which Christ bestows. I do not object to extending the 
σύπος in this way, provided it be understood when thus extended, not of 
penalty in the higher sense as actually inflicted, nor of blessings in the 
higher sense as actually bestowed, but of exposedness to penalty on the one 
hand, and eaposedness (sit venia verbo comparationis caus&) to blessings 
on the other. How can any thing more than this be made out? That 
everlasting death will actually be inflicted on all of Adam’s race, of course 
will not be assumed; and as little can it be made out, that everlasting 
life will actually be bestowed on all. 

The subject, properly considered, will afford relief to the mind, which 
is struggling with difficulty arising from the assertions of the apostle, which 
represent the blessings procured by redemption as being co-extensive with 
the mischiefs introduced by the fall. The evils-and blessings in question 
are in many important respects co-extensive; and in their Azghest sense 
they arein this way regarded as being suspended on something which ts to 


“- a 4 
de 


Cr 


EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. Iv. 14. 


be done on the part of man in order either to suffer the one or to enjoy the 
other What hinders, then, that Adam in respect to the evils which he 
has introduced, should be contrasted (as Paul has contrasted him) with 
Christ in respect to the blessings which he has introduced ? 

After all, there are many serious and considerate men, accustomed toa 
different mode of representing this subject, who probably will not concede 
to this way of considering it. ΤῸ them I may say, that, with the excep- 
tion of some whose views areexcessive on this point, I have an apprehen- 
sion that the difference consists more in words and modes of interpretation, 
than in opinion as to the facts which are really true. They take it for 
granted, at the outset, that in all respects in which our present condition 
differs from that of Adam before his fall, in those respects it must be the 
consequence of sin; and to this I do not object ; excepting that the latitude 
of the assertion ‘ aél respects,” may possibly be too wide. What is called 
high orthodoxy maintains, moreover, that the disposition with which we 
are born is itself not only sin, but a part of the punishment of sin; and,as 
we could not ourselves sin before we had an existence, that Adam’s sin is 
imputed to us, and we are punished for it, by being born with a disposi- 
tion which is itself sinful, and which is also a part of the penalty of Adam’s 
᾿ sin imputed to us. The argument is, that inasmuch as we are born heirs 
of woe and heirs of a disposition to sin, this must be a punishment for 
guilt which is either our own in a strict sense, or our own by imputation. 

Now that men are born with a disposition that will certainly and always 
lead them to sin, in all their acts of a moral nature, before they are regen- 
erated, 1 admit as fully as they do. But the fictitious process of account- 
ing for this on the ground of zmpuded sin, which in this way becomes our 
own, is not what the Bible asserts or seems to maintain. There is not, in 
all the Scriptures,an instance in which one man’s sinor righteousness ts said 
to be imputed to another. If there is, let it be produced, and discussion on 
this point will then cease. 

The natural state of man I admit to be one that is destitute of any pro- 
per disposition to holiness; and therefore, that man in his natural state is 
exposed to all the ferrors of the curse. Thisis in itself a tremendous evil; 
it is also the consequence of Adam’s fall. But I can see no advantage to 
be gained by accounting for this evil in the fictitious way of imputation. 
The awful turpitude of sin is disclosed by the fact that the consequences 
fall upon the innocent as well as the guilty. The vicious parent ruins his 
innocent children; the wicked ruler plunges whole nations into wretched- 
ness. Is this fact illustrated, proved, or accounted for, by saying that his 
wickedness is ¢mputed to these nations? Not in the least. The fact is one 
which takes place as the natural and regular sequence of wickedness, under 
the present constitution of things. But it helps the matter in no way to 
bring in the fiction of imputation. 

So in the case of Adam in his posterity. All are sufferers on n1s account. 
The original state of man is lost. A new one is come in, in consequence 
of his sin, which is fraught with danger and sorrow. It is certain now, 
that all who come to sufficient maturity to sin, will sin. This certainty 
has been occasioned by the fall. In this way “all.are made sinners by 
the disobedience of one,” ἡ. e., all are placed in a condition in which they 
will surely be sinners and nothing else, in case of moral development or 
of ability to commit sin. More than this cannot be made out. More is 


576 EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. V. 14. 


not even contended for by moderate and sober writers, whenever they lose 
sight of the doctrine of imputation. In proof of this, we may appeal to 
the fact, that they have made a broad distinction between original and 
actual sin. Why this ? Plainly because the human mind revolts at con- 
founding our own personal and voluntary acts as free agents, with the 
disposition that the God of nature has given us, and in which we had 
no concurrence. But where does the Bible make éwo sorts of sin, we 
might well ask; two sorts so immeasurably different as these? The 
one free, voluntary, of our own choice; the other antecedent to all choice 
or action ἢ 

Then, again, the advocates for imputation do most of them concede the 
salvation of infants, who die before the commission of actual sin. Why ? 
Plainly because they cannot bring their minds to place voluntary sins on 
a level with involuntary ones. Pietet himself, strenuous as he is in ortho- 
doxy, puts the question, whether final damnation would ensue merely on 
the ground of original sin ? And this he answers by the declaration, that 
he does not believe it would. 

Of what use then is it to confound things by giving them one and the 
same name (sin), which we afterwards separate so widely from each other, 
and which we cannot help separating, without doing a violence to the first 
laws of our moral consciousness? It I might be permitted to suggest an 
answer, it would be, that it answers no other purpose but to keep Chris- 
tians separated from each other, and to perpetuate disput2 about names, 
while as to things they are essentially agreed. Different modes of explan- 
ation they may adopt. In difficult and mysterious matters men will always 
do this. But why should we refuse to see, that calling certain things by 
certain names, helps neither to establish nor explain them, A fictitious 
ground for a resting-place, which is never adopted by the sacred writers, can 
never add to the peace or harmony, or valuable stores of theologians. 

In a word, it does not follow, because men are born heirs of woe and 
exposed to become actual sinners, that this is to be considered as individual — 
and personal punishment (in the proper sense of this word); nor that 
any light is thrown on this mystery by saying, that they are sinners by 
imputation. Imputed sin and veritable punishment do not match together. 
Eternal justice is in no good measure vindicated by coupling them together. 
The mind remains, after all fictitious efforts of this nature, just where it 
was before. ‘The facts are seen and confessed; but the mode of account- 
ing for them in this way, the mind is not obligated to receive, while no de- 
clarations of such a nature can be pointed out in the Scriptures, 

My positions are, that all men are born destitute of a predominant dis- 
position to holiness; that all who come to moral action will sin and always 
sin before regeneration; that this state of things is brought upon us by 
Adam’s fall; that suffering and personal sin, however, in such a world as 
this now is, are by no means co-extensive; that the tremendous evil of sin is, 
that it often affects the innocent (innocent in regard to the particular mat- 
ter that occasioned the evil) as well as the guilty; and that admitting these 
facts, we have the substance of the scriptural doctrine respecting the fall 
and its consequences. The guo modo, 2. e., the manner of accounting for 
such facts as these, I cannot regard as important, excepting that it should 
not be anti-scriptural. A mere law-fiction cannot help us here; and here, 
moreover, the sacred writers have not speculated; why then should we? 


EXCURSUS IV. ON ΒΟΜ.ΟῸν. 14. 577 


Tt is only when men hold fast to the position, than there can be no evilin 
the world which is not penalty in the proper sense—penalty in respect to 
the particular individual who suffers it—that they need to be embarrassed 
with the question, why we are heirs of woe, and of a disposition that leads 
to actual sin. Tell us then, all ye who assume such a position, Was Adam 
in paradise, before his fall, exposed to no evil? Did he suffer none? Posi- 
tive pains of body or of mind, I grant he did not suffer; but was it no evil 
to be exposed to the temptations of Satan? Did it prove to be none? 
Nay, I might well ask, to what greater evil could he have been subjected, 
unless it was final perdition, than to be thus exposed to the wiles of Satan? 
Why then should we be so often and so confidently told, that αἰ evil is the 
penalty of sin, and only the penalty of it? Itis not so; it has not been so. 
Ina world of ériad, there is and must be evil of some kind or other, in some 
degree or other; else trial is but an empty name. 

We need not be over solicitous then to answer the question, How can 
all the present evils suffered by men, or evils to which they are exposed, be 
accounted for? That Adam’s fall has been concerned with them, or most 
of them, in their present form, is clearly and abundantly taught by Paulin 
- the chapter before us. But in what way, ὦ, ¢., how far in all respects, and 
the modus operandi, this chapter does neither assert norexplain. Whyneed 
we do what the apostle has left undone? To say that these evils come be- 
cause of imputed sin, is explaining nothing, satisfying in no degree the en- 
quiring mind, helping the case in no respect. It is only changing res ob- 
scura for nomen obscurius. Enough that we believe the facts, as simply 
stated; speculation beyond this has hitherto availed little indeed, and pro- 
mises but little for the future. 

Imust make one more remark in this connection. The inquiry hasoften 
been made: On the ground that the evils of the present life and physical 
_ death stand connected with the fall of Adam, howcan it be that the redemp- 
tion of Christ does not liberate the elect from αὐ these evils? In reply to 
this I would say to the enquirer: Mark well that Paul does not aver, that 
the blessings procured by Christ do in ad/ respects stand directly opposed to 
the evils introduced by Adam, so as to prevent their occurrence in any de- 
gree. Not at all. He only avers that blessings superabound, and that they 
are of the like extent with the evils. We have seen that this is true; and 
we have abundant assurance, also, that all the sufferings and sorrows of this 
life, which the children of God are called on to undergo, will turn to good 
account at last in respect to their spiritual interests. This does not show 
indeed that they are not evils in themselves; but only that they may be 
converted into a blessing, by that infinite power and wisdom and benevo- 
lence which have redeemed man. It sets the redemption of Christ in a 
new and glorious light, that such are the effects of it; and in such a light 
it was the design of Paul to place it, inthe paragraph beforeus. As I 
have before said, suffering and sorrow in some degree may be necessary (so 
infinite wisdom has adjudged) to our discipline in our sinful and fallen 
state, but they do not substantially detract, and they never can detract, 
from the actual superabounding of the blessings which the gospel has 
introduced. 

(4) The τύπος is not between the person of Adam as such, and that of 
Christ. The apostle docs not undertake to compare the personal qualities 
of the one with those of the other; it is the act of one and its consequences 
which is compared with the act of the other and its consequences. It is 

20 


573 EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. VY. 14. 


παράπτωμα and κατάκριμα OD the one side, and ὑπακοή and δικαίωμα on the 
other. 

(5) The apostle nowhere declares Adam to be the federal head or repre- 
sentative of all his posterity ; nor Christ to be the federal head of his spirit- 
ual children. It would be indispensable, indeed, to the admission of the 
latter idea, that Christ should be regarded as the federal head of the elect 
only. But as we have seen, the representations of the present passage do 
not admit of such an exegesis. The usual doctrine of the more recent Pro- 
testant symbols, in respect tothe federaland representative capacity of Christ 
and Adam, appears to have had its rise in the time and in consequence of 
the disputes of Augustine ; it was variously modified aud represented by tiie 
schoolmen of after ages; it was however more fully developed in its pre- 
sent form at the time of Cocceius, who gave occasion to such a develop- 
ment by his manner of considering the covenants of law and grace. What- 
ever may be correct or incorrect in the more usual representations about 
federal head, it does not appear to me to be taught in the chapter before 
us. It is drawn from it, as all must admit, merely in the way of theologi- 
cal deduction. It is a deduction indeed, which in some respects, and in a 
modified sense, seems to present nothing inconsistent with scriptural doc- 
trine; inasmuch as all men are affected more or less by what Adam their 
first progenitor did, and also by what Christ has done in order to introduce 
a dispensation of grace. But we may safely add, that this particular form 
of expression casts no new a/lditional light on the difficulties of our subject ; 
and, from the nature of the case, it cannot be justly deemed essential to a 
full belief in the Christian doctrine of depravity or of redemption, that the 
idea of federal representation should be urged. 

(6) Calvin points out two other points of dissimilitude between Adam 
and Christ, which he says the apostle did not think unworthy of notice, but 
which he omitted to notice merely because the turn of his discourse did not 
allow him to do it. These are (a) “ Quod peccato Adae non per solam 
imputationem damnamur, acsi alieni peccati exigeretur a nobis poena; sed 
ideo ejus poenam sustinemus, guia etculpesumus ret, quatenus scilicet natura 
nostra in ipso vitiata, iniquitatis reatu obstringitur apud Deum. 

“At per Christi justitiam ado modo in salutem restituimur; neque enim 
id nobisaccepta fertur gud intra nos sit,sed quod Christum ipsum, cum bonis 
suis omnibus, Patris largitate nobis donatum possidemus.” Calvin then 
adds (which those should note well who may hold that Christ’s righteous- 
ness does in any proper sense become our own): “ Itaque donum justitiz 
non qualitatem qua nos Deus imbuat, sed gratuctam justitie imputationem 
significat.” | 

(6) “ Altera [differentia] est, quod non ad omneshomines pervenit Christi 
beneficium, quemadmodum wniversum sud genus damnatione Adam invol- 
vit.” He then goes on to state that the ground of this is, that ‘* cur cor- 
ruption comes in the course of nature (he means that it is transmitted by 
natural generation), and so pervades the whole mass ; but we must possess 
faith in order to participate in the blessings proffered by Christ. To be 
depraved, it is necessary only to be aman ; to participate in the righteous- 
ness of Christ, one must be a believer. The infants of believers have by 
covenant a right of adoption, by wich they come into communion with 
Christ ; other infants are not exe πρὶ from the common lot. Comm. on 
Rom. v. 17. 

Two more points of difference then, Calvin contends for, which aremade 


EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. V. 14. 579 


out in the way of implication. The /rs¢t is this, viz., that Adam’s sin is not 
imputed to us merely as the sin of another, z. e., one which is put to our 
account, but that our nature has become vitiated in consequence of it, and 
the fault thus becomes inherent, and in a proper sense our own. [On this 
point he and Turretin are directly at variance, and with Calvin do Ed- 
wards and Stapfer take sides.] But the righteousness of Christ does 
never become tnherently our own, for the pardon bestowed on account of 
it is simply gratuitous. 

Into a discussion of this topic my limits do not allow me here to go. 
Calvin may be in the right or in the wrong, just as one understands and 
defines his assertions. He denies that pumshment for another’s sins is ex- 
acted of us; and here I fully believe him to be in the right ; for punishment, 
in the proper sense of this word, and under a system of | law which is strictly 
' just, must ever have relation to one’s own offences. But sufferers because 
of Adam’s sin we truly are; for how else shall we account for it, that we are 
born destitute of a disposition to holiness, and possessed of one which (in 
case of moral development) will certainly lead us to sin? To say that 
Adam’s vitiosity is transmitted to us by natural generation, or in any simply 
~ physical way, helps nothing in the way of explanation. What matters it, 
whether we have Adam’s vitiosity, or another one de novo, if after all we 
actually have such a vitiosity as fact shows that we do possess? The mo- 
dus in quo cf obtaining it, is a question of no practical moment; and it is 
wonderful that so much stress should have been laid uponit. How is the 
fact in question in any way illustrated, established, or vindicated by such 
a supposition? ‘The transmission of a moraéd character in the way of natu- 
ral descent is a problem that (to say the least) must always remain dark and 
difficult; for in a strict and proper sense every man forms his own moral 
character. But the fact that all men are so born, since the fall, that they 
are disposed to evil and not to good, at the first opening of moral develop- 
ment, is a faet which universal experience testifies. With this simpl fact 
we may well rest satisfied. Speculation bas not yet helped us to.any ade- 
quate eclaircissement, and, so far as I can see, is not likely to do so. 

In regard to the second point of discrepancy made by Calvin, it would 
seem to show that he regarded Christ as here represented to be the federal 
head of only the elect. It is beyond all doubt true that the highest bles- 
sings of his grace are bestowed only on believers, But the question whether 
Paul meant to confine his τύπος within such a limit as this, is surely one 
which we cannot receive upon simple assertion. Indeed the σύπος could 
scarcely be made out, if this view of the subject is the trueone. Nor is it 
in any measure true, that blessings—a multitude of blessings—procured by 
the Saviour do not come upon all the human race. ' Here then is the anti- 
thesis to the mischiefs that come upon all, through the offence of Adam. 
But if we advance to the higher blessings and higher evils: on the one side 
are blessings which cannot be conferred without voluntary acts of penitence 
and belief on the part of men; on the other, then, why should we suppose 
that everlasting death will be inflicted unless men actually sin’ After all 
that is said in favour of this theory, most men show their radical distrust 
in it, by holding to the salvation of infants and idiots, who die without 
moral development in voluntary moral action. If the τύπος be extended, 
then, to these higher blessings and penalties, it would seem that it must be 
extended in this conditional way. In this way we can account for the 
apostle’s declaration, viz., ‘that death comes on all, when all have sinned.’ 


580 EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. Vv. 16. 


EXCURSUS V. 
On Rom. v. 16 (p. 248). 


I cannot see that the considerations here suggested suffer any abatement 
of their force, on the supposition that the οἱ πολλοί (on whom the blessings 
procured by Christ are conferred) comprises only the elect ; as some stren- 
uously maintain. For the elect are never made partakers of actwal pardon 
and justification, without repentance and faith; and these are both acts of 
their own, for it is not the sanctifying Spirit of God who repents and believes 
for them. And these are not only their own acts, but they are truly acts 
which constitute a conditvo sine gua non of real pardon and justification. But 
how is it, now, on the other side of the antithesis? According’to the views 
of those who advocate the above sentiment, the very edect are partakers of 
Adam’s sin and guilt to the full extent of final and eternal damnation, ante- 
cedently to any act or choice of their own. So, at all events, Turretin 
states this matter; and so, others who think with him. But, looked at in 
this simple light, how are the particulars of the comparison to be made out? 
Or in what important respect is there any real rizog left between the one 
and the other? The simple thing, that the act of one had influence on 
others, seems to be all that remains: the manner of that influence, the con- 
dition of it, its extent, the degree of causality or efficacy which should be 
attributed to it, are all thrown out of the question; and yet these are the 
main points of importance and interest. When the question is put: ‘ Whe- 
ther the influence of the Spirit of God in regeneration is efficient as causa 
principalis, or whether it is secondary or subordinate, ὃ, e., whether it oper- 
ates merely as causa occasionalis?’ it is thought by most theologians to be 
a fundamental question in evangelical theology ; and in my apprehension 
rightly thought to be so. In this case, then, it isnot so much the fact itself, 
viz., that the Spirit of God does influence the sinner who is converted, 
which interests us, asit is the degree and hind and extent and condition of his 
influence. How can it be otherwise in the case of the first and second 
Adam? The mere fact that each had some kind of influence upon others, 
would seem not to cast much light upon theology, or to create much 
interest in this particular topic, or give much importance to the considera- 
tion of it. It is then the degree and kind and condition and extent of in- 
fluence, which constitute that which is of special interest or importance. 
But how are these to be at all compared, when things so diverse are brought 
together, as many bring together in the present case? On the one side, 
many blessings are unconditionally bestowed on all men without exception; 
yet still higher and eternal happiness is made altogether conditional, even 
after all which Christ has done ; for it is suspended on their own voluntary 
acts of repentance and faith. But on the other, there is not only uncondi- 
tional and universal temporal evil to a certain extent (for this all candid 
persons would seem constrained to admit), but there is unconditional and 
universal sin, guilt, and misery, in their ultimate and eternal measure, 
before any voluntary act at all of the nascent human being, and before he 
is in any proper physiological and pneumatical sense capable of any free 
moral agency whatever. Nor can we, if we keep upon Turretin’s ground, 


EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. V. 16. 581 


draw back from this statement, as some have lately attempted to do. This 
is and has been the dominant opinion among those who sometimes ciaim 
the exclusive right to be called the highly orthodox party in the reformed 
churches; as every man may satisfy himself who will read Turretin, Van 
Maestricht, or other writers of the like character. And assuming this 
statement for our basis, where, I ask again, is the risog that remains, in 
any respect that can be a matter of much interest or importance ? 

Should it be said, as it has been, that the grand riqog in this case is 7m- 
putation on both sides—imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, and of 

_ Christ’s righteousness to the elect—the simple answer is, that this is not 

~ once asserted, nor even hinted (sofar as I am able to discover) in the whole 
passage. Not one word more or less is here uttered respecting wnputation. 
The proof of this lies in the inspection of the passage itself. Those who 
make out imputation, then, must bring it in upon the text, and not bring it 
out of the text by any laws of exegesis into their own minds or circle of 
ideas. Whatever may be elsewhere taught respecting zmputation, it is not 
to be found here. And indeed with respect to other parts of the Bible, it 
is plain matter of fact that the Scriptures (as has once and again been said) 
never speak of any man’s sin being imputed to others; it is the impu- 
tation of one’s own sin or fault to himsedf; which they speak of (as we have 
already seen, p. 167 above), and not the imputation of the sin of one man 
to others who did not commit that sin. 

How can it be consistent now, that we should denounce others in severe 
terms, who, in order to make out their favourite tenets, do on any occasion 
superinduce a meaning upon the sacred text which will support their own 
peculiar views; and yet we ourselves, who thus readily denounce this prac- 
tice in others, do the very same thing in respect to the passage before us, 
where no declaration is at all made, that the evils resulting from Adam’s sin, 
or the benefits bestowed by Christ’s obedience, are by imputation? Is it 
true, that the train of evils that result from the fall, are no more than sup- 
pository, ὃ. e., imputed ones? And are the unspeakable blessings that come 
to us on account of what Christ has done and suffered, only cmputed, 2. e., 
supposititious ones, or at least are they only from a supposititious source ? 
Does not the mind spontaneously ask, Can imputed sin be punished other- 
wise than by imputed damnation, unless the eternal laws of right and wrong 
—of even-handed justice, are to be overturned and set aside? And must 
not imputed righteousness correspond with imputed happiness? Else how 
can we join par cum part? And what is the kind of moral government 
that we must be led to believe in, by this method of representing the sub- 
ject ἢ A world, not of realities, but of imputations; all as it were factitious, 
and nothing real and veritable as to the original ground of punishment or 
reward! Moreover, according to the scheme in question, while Adam’s 
sin is not only imputed to us,and thus imputed brings upon us the sentence 
of real and veritable death in its final and eternal power, and while there is 
besides this an inherent original sin (the penalty of imputed sin) which also 
subjects us to the like condemnation; yet, on the other hand, Christ’s 
righteousness, although said to be zmputed to us, is acknowledged as never 
becoming wzherent (for then we should be absolutely perfect), but is 
reckoned only as supposititious. Here then is par cum impart. ‘The two 
cases are immeasurably diverse, and the real τύπος seems to be much, if 
not altogether obscured. Must we not force our way, when we oblige our- 
selves to move in such a direction as this ? 


582 EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. VY. 16. 


After all, however, it is rather the Janguage employed, and the costume 
put upon this whole matter by such modes of representation, than the real 
ultimate object in view, at least the object in view as conceived of by sober 
and judicious men, to which one may reasonably object. The extremes of 
the tmputation doctrine do certainly lead to very serious difficulties; some of 
which are stated above, and many others might be added, if this were the 
proper place. It is enough to say, once more, that chere is not in all the Bible 
one assertion, that Adams sin or Christ's righteousness is imputed to us; nor 
one declaration that any man’s sin is ever imputed by God or man to an- 
other man. If this be not a correct statement, those who discredit it have 
the obvious means before them of correcting it, But if it does not need 
correction, then why should we be compelled to admit, as essential truth, 
the modus of stating a doctrine which has no parallel in the Scriptares ; 
which we may therefore regard as not expressly warranted by the word 
of God; which is so obviously adapted to raise difficulties ia the mind on 
the score of God’s justice and impartiality; which seems to resolve the 
grand features of redemption into mere arbitrary sovereignty; which counts 
things to be what all confess they are not; which seems also to present 
the moral governor of the universe as doing with the one hand for the sake 
of undoing with the other, and doing much—very much that is all-im- 
portant—in a merely fictitious way, and not as veritable reality; why, I 
would most respectfully ask, should we be compelled to adopt such a state- 
ment, unless the Bible absolutely demands it? Every Protestant, at least, 
is at liberty to ask this question; and he is at liberty to choosea different 
mode of stating the subject, until it can be shown that the Bible requires 
this mode, and this only. 

But I speak, of course, only of wltraism in these views. It is altogether 
plain that many, I believe I might say of most sober, judicious, and pious 
men, who have well studied this subject, and are attached to this mode of 
representation, use the terms emputation and impute only as a convenient or 
rather compendious method of expressing their belief, that the posterity of 
Adam have greatly suffered on account of his sin, and that they receive 
many blessings on account of what Christ has done and suffered. Could 
this be fully and plainly understood, so that no mistake would flow from the 
use of the words in question, strenuous dispute about them would belittle 
more than logomachy, and quite unworthy of a sober man; for the thing 
vésclf, as thus stated, all men of what is called evangelical sentiment must 
agree and do agree. The objection to imputation and impute, as employed 
by ultr a-theologians, is, that these words (85 they apply them) have nowar- 

rant in Scripture; that they are adapted to mislead the mass of men as to 
the real truths inculcated by the doctrines of grace; and that the doctrine 
apparently inculcated by them is liable to many appalling objections, among 
which one of the most urgent is, that the sin of Adam and the righteousness 
of Christ are represented as imputed in the like way, when after all the 
method is so exceedingly diverse, as we have seen above. At least this 
Jatter assertion is most palpably true, when the consequences of imputation 
which are invariably connected with it by those who strenuously maintain 
the doctrine, are taken into view. Kor as they represent the matter, the 
consequence of Adanr’s zmputed sin, is to be born an heir of damnation and 
of inherent sin; and the latter is regarded both as the punishment of the 
furmer and as anew cause for other punishment. and also as the cause ofall 
subsequent actual sin; while, on the other hand, men are not regarded as 


EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. V. 19, 583 


born holy on account of Christ; not even the e/ect are so born ; nor is there 
ever any inherent holiness in them because Christ’s righteousness is imputed 
to them. They are made really and veritably holy in part (not putatively 
so), by the sanctifying influences of the Spirit of God, on account of what 
Christ has done and suffered; so that their holiness is net in this case fac- 
titious, and the Redeemer’s holiness is not veritably theirs. If it were 
so, then perfect holiness would be theirs; and they could then present a 
claim of salvation on the ground of meeting the demands of the law. Mere 
imputed holiness, however, never can answer proper legal demands; and 
therefore it’can never entitle sinners toa legal acquittal. Pardon is givea 
altogether of grace; not on the ground of either real or factitious, 2. e., iim- 
puted obedience. The first of these sinners cannot plead; the second, law 
(as such) does not in itself admit. 

If any one should reply, as doubtless some may do, that Christ is and is 
called the Lord our righteousness ; my answer would be, that heis atsame time 
called our wisdom and sanctification and redemption. Now he is by this 
representation made just as much our imputed wisdom, and our imputed 
sanctification, ar.d our imputed redemption, as he is our imputed righteous- 
ness. But what possible sense could be made from imputation as applied tu 
wll these? Whatis our vmputed redemption? The simple meaning, then, 
of all is, that Christ is the author of the wisdom which the gospel has re- 
vealed; he is the procuring cause of the sanctification which believers ex- 
perience; he is the author of the eternal redemption of which they are made 
partakers ; and he is the Lord of their righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) in the same 
way, 2. ¢., he is the meritorious cause of their justification or pardoa. 


EXCURSUS VI. 


On Rom. v. 19, διὰ τῆς παρακυῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ 


πολλοί (pp. 258, 259). 


Tuus much for the simple meaning of the word χατεστάθησαν. The sum 
of the meaning conveyed by the whole declaration still remains in some 
measure to be ascertained. ‘Lhose who are familiar with the idiom of the 
original Scriptures must know, that causation of every degree andkind was 
usually expressed by the Hebrews in one andthe same way. We are ac- 
customed, when we wish for nice distinctions, to speak of efficcent or princi- 
pal cause, and of secondary or instrumental or occasional cause, &c. But it 
1s Not so generally in the Scriptures. ‘God moves David to go and num- 
ber Isracl, and Satan moves David to go and number Israel.’ The very 
saine verb is applied to both agents in this case. So ‘the Lord hardencd 
Pharaoh’s heart, and Pharaoh hardened his own heart;’ see Exod. vii. 13, 
ix. 12, x. 1, 20, 27, xi. 10, xiv. 8; Rom. ix. 18; Deut. ii. 80; Isai. lxiii. 
17; Jolin xii. 40. So evil is aseribed to God, both moral and natural; 2 
Sam. xii. 11, xvi. 10; 1 Kings xxii. 22; Josh. xi. 20; Ps. ev. 25; 1 Kings 
xi. 23, xxiv. 1. In like manner God issaid to give men anew heart, and 
they are commanded to ‘make to themselves a new heart; the Spirit of God 


584 EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. Y. 19, 


is said to convince, and convert, and regenerate the sinner; and the same 
thing is often ascribed, for the most part in the like words, to the gospel 
and to the power of divinetruth. Now he who has not carefully noted and 
weighed these obvious and highly important facts, isin great danger of making 
out in some way a very partial system of theology, and of contradicting 
inhis exegesis of one part of the Bible, what the sacred writers have affirmed 
in another. 

To apply this to the case before us. Were constituted sinners means, that 
Adam was, in some sense or other, the cause or occasion of his posterity 
becoming sinners. But whether this was through a degradation of their 
nature physically propagated down from father to son; or whether it was 
(as Chrysostom, CEcumenius, Pelagius, Erasmus, and others have maintained 
although with high improbability ), only by virtue of the example which he 
set; or whether it was in some other way, is not determined by the lan- 
guage of the text. Such expressions, as we have seen above, do not de- 
termine of themselves either the degree or the kind of causality. Principal 
or subordinate causation in this case may either of them be expressed by 
the phrase διὰ rijs—xarzorddnoav, ‘The strenuous advocate for imputation 
avers, however, that the posterity of Adam were constituted sinners, by his 
offence being imputed to them, and their being treated as though they had 
committed rt. 

But when I look at the nature of this case, and ask what language the 
apostle would most probably have employed, had he designed to convey 
such a meaning, I am constrained to say, that the case can hardly be sup- 
posed with probability, that he would have employed merely such language 
as that before us, when other modes of expression more explicit and obvious 
were within his reach. “Ors ἐν αὐτῷ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἐλογίσθησαν----ὅτ, αὐτοῖς 
ἐλογίσθη ἡ ἁμαρτὶα αὐτοῦ----ΟΥ else ὅτι ἦσαν ὑπόδικοι διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας αὐτοῦ, 
or something equivalent to these expressions, might, not to say must, have 
been added after οἱ πολλοὶ, so as to prevent all mistake. But as the matter 
now is, with the necessarily active sense of ἁμαρτωλοὶ, the language itself 
cannot lead us philologically to the supposition of an imputation scheme of 
sin. The language does by usus loguendi and the necessity of the case im- 
port, that Adam’s offence is in some way concerned with making men to 
be sinners, not that it caused them to be so reputed or dealt with when they 
werenotsinners. Howcan constituting aman a sinner, or making him such, 
mean merely tmputing the sin of another to him, 7. e., counting that to be 
his which actually is not ? 

The improbability of this mode of interpretation, moreover, is rendered 
far greater in consequence of the fact, that there is not in all the Bible a 
single declaration that one man’s sin or righteousness is ever imputed to 
another. How can we regard then ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν as Meaning were 
made sinners by imputation, when there is not such a declaration or phrase 
in all the Scriptures besides? Having followed 10M and λογίζομαι through 


the concordances, I hesitate not to challenge a single example which is 
fairly of this nature in all the Bible. 

Are we then to decide such a matter of philology by a priori maxims of 
theology—and of theology patristic or symbolistic only? ‘That part of 
human symbols which I regard as the most decisive and authoritative of all, 
is the one which declares that the Scriptures are the SUFFICIENT and ONLY 


EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. V 19. 585 


rule of faith and practice. Imputation here is evidently brought in upon 
the text; the apostle has not left us a single intimation in the context that 
he puts this sense on the words ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν. Nor can the words 
naturally bear this sense. That men should be constituted or made sinners 
by the disobedience of Adam, most naturally means, I had almost said, must 
necessarily mean, that in some way his offence so affected them as that they 
become actual sinners 7” propria persona. Now is any thing more common 
than this mode of expression? ‘A man of vicious character,’ we say, ‘cor- 
rupts his whole family. A profligate of winning exterior corrupts the whole 
neighbourhood of youth around him. One sceptic makes many doubters 
in revelation. The example of a bad man has a tendency to render others 
vicious. Sinners entice others to join with them. Voltaire made half of 
literary Europe sceptical.’ Now in these and a thousand other like ex- 
pressions, we do mean to assert an active influence, a real causality in some 
proper sense, of the evil done or spoken. Yet we never once think, for 
example, of Voltaire’s scepticism being emputed to half of literary Europe ; 
nor do we once imagine, that any of the classes above named as being cor- 
rupted are corrupted without any voluntary agency of their own. The siz of 
- corrupt feelings and affections is entirely their own: it matters not what the 
causes were which operated on them, so long as they were after all left to 
their own choice whether they would yield to the excitement or resist it. 

So far then as the force of danguage is concerned, the expression ἀμαρτωλοὶ 
κατεστάθησαν can never be proved to mean that Adam’s posterity were made 
sinners only by imputation. Indeed it must mean something more than 
this and different from it. It is read and not fictitious and merely putative 
sin, of which the apostle is here speaking; as we may see by appealing to 
ver. 12, and to the nature of the case and the meaning of ἁμαρτωλοί. 

In what way, then, does Adam’s sin operate, in order to produce the effect 
which the apostle attributes to it? The degree, the extent, and nature of 
this influence, seem all to be laid open in the text. It amounts tosucha 
degree as to involve us in ἃ ruinousstate or condition; it extends to all the 
posterity of Adam; it is a cause or ground of moral depravation, for it is 
the cause or occasion of all men’s coming into condemnation, and therefore 
it must be a cause of their becoming sinners. But after all, the modus 
operandi is not declared by the apostle. He does not say, whether the oper- 
ation of Adam’s sin is on our physical or mental constitution; or whether 
it has influence merely on the condition in which we are placed, as being 
expelled from paradise and surrounded by peculiar temptations; nor whe- 
ther it is example merely of Adam which we copy; and therefore a man 
may believe all that Paul has here taught, who refrains from speculations 
on any of these points, or on any others of the like nature, because he be- 
lieves that nothing is to be gained by it. Better indeed would it have been 
for the quiet of the churches, if many had entirely refrained from all the 
particular modes «f explanation which they have urged; for the danger is 
great that we may not only substitute our own individual belief and specu- 
Jations for essential doctrines of the Scriptures here, but also fora com- 
mentary upon the text, and then elevate what we have thus superadded 
to an eminence far above the text itself. 

1015 not then from the text or context here that we can explain the modus 
operandi of Adam’s sin. But from facts elsewhere disclosed and well known 
by observation we may learn, that all men are now born destitute of a hely 


586 EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. V. 19. 


disposition, 2. ¢., a disposition that would lead them to obey the divine law. 
Our nature then is degenerate and fallen; and what can have rendered it so 
but sin? Then, again, Adam’s sin occasioned the expulsion of our race 
from paradise; the ground was cursed on account of this; we are new bern 
in a state in which we are every where surrounded and assailed by tempta- 
tions: we have no predominant inclination or disposition to resist them, 
although we have the physiological and psycholegical power to do so; and 
for all these reasons (and these are enough to account for the fact without 
the aid of cmputation), all men are constituted, or do become sinners That 
they are actual sinners in the womb, before they are capable of moral know- 
ledge and action, Panl has expressly denied in Rom. ix. 11, ‘* The children 
being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil.” Even those who 
make é¢o sorts of sin, viz., original and actual, would seem virtually to admit 
the truth which the apostle here affirms, if they admit infants to be guilty of 
only putative sin. But still, that men are born with a disposition that will lead 
them to sin, or occasion them to sin, is altogether certain from Scripture and 
from fact. Now this is a state the opposite of thatin which Adam was cre- 
ated; for his predominant disposition was that which led to holy action. 
What then can the apostle refer towhen he makes the affirmation in our text, 
unless it be to facts like those that are stated above? And we may safely 
admit these facts; inasmuch as theyare confirmed by Scripture, and by every 
day’s experience. But the modus operandi by which they are brought about, 
must still remain, in many respects, entirely hidden from our view. Why 
should we waste our time and talents, and spoil our benevolent feelings 
towards others, in pushing our speculations where the sacred writers have 
not led the way, and where facts will not warrant us in pushing them? 
One more remark of a philological nature should be made on the manner 
in which causality is stated in this verse, viz. διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς. Bretschneider 
(Dogm. II., p. 53) says, that the apostle by using dsc) means to signify that 
he regards Adam’s offence onlyin the light of an instrumental cause. Icannot 
think this mode of proof, however, to be valid; for that διά may stand be- 
fore a Genitive which denotes principad cause, is sufficiently plain from ex- 
amples in Johni., 3. iii. 17; Rom. xi. 36, i. 5; 1 Cor. 1. 9; Gal. i. 1; 2 Thess. 
ii. 2; Heb. i. 3, δὲ ἑαυτοῦ. But that such phrases as διὰ παρακοῆς κατεστάθη- 
σαν cannot, from the mere form of the language, be made to mean principal 
cause, is not only clear from the fact that διά before the Genitive usually de- 
signates instrumental or secondary cause, but from the fact also that cascs 
occur where it would be absurd to construe it as designating causa princt- 
pals. For example: Paul says in Rom. vii. 5, ra παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, 
σὰ ὃ ἃ τοῦ νόμου, our sinful passions which are by the law. In ver. 7 he says: 
“1 had not known sin, but διὰ τοῦ νόμου," In ver. 8 he says: “Sin, taking 
occasion διὼ τῆς ἐντολῆς, Wrought in me all manner of concupiscence;” and so 
in ver.11. Is the law then the efficient cause of sinful passions and actions? 
Yet the law had something to do with these; and it is therefore (as usual 
among the sacred writers) reckoned ag a cause or ground of them; but by 
no means the exclusive or principal or only cause. And so in the case be- 
fore us; if Adam’s sin as imputed to us, if original sin indeed either imputed 
or inherent (as theologians speak), be the sole and exclusive cause of all our 
sin, then what was the cause of Adam’s first sin? He surely was not in- 
fluénced by original sin, in either sense that is assigned to this word. ‘The 
truth seems plainly to be, that there was originally a susceptibility in our 


EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. V. 19. £87 


nature of being impressed and excited by allurements to sin; else how hap- 
pened it that Adam was moved to sin? Even the spotless Saviour was 
tempted; and if there were ao sympathies in his nature like to our own, or 
rather, like to those of Adam in his primitive state, how could he be tempted, 
and how could the apostle appeal (as he does in Heb. ii. 14—18, iv. 15, 16) 
to his sympathy with us who are tempted, as the peculiar ground of hope 
and relief for us when we are subjected to temptations? 

The point of degradation and fall, then, would seem to develope itself pe- 
culiarly in this particular, viz., that our sympathies towards sinful objectsare 
now much stronger and higher than those of Adam in his primitive state ; 
such indeed as to renderit certain that our moral acts willall be sinful, until 
we become regenerated and sanctified. This renders certain the great fact 
stated by the apostle, thatall men become sinners through the disobedience of 
Adam. But that they are actual sinners defore moral action, can be made 
out whenitis shown that sin does not consistin moral action ; and that moral 
action begins before birth, can be made out whentheassertion of Paul, that 
Jacob and Esau (when old enough to struggle together in the womb) ‘had 
not done any good or evil.” 

The reason why God made such a constitution of human nature, which 
would suffer in all its branches by reason of an act of sin in our first parents, 
he has not given. We leave that to his infinite wisdom and goodness, cheer- 
fully confiding in the great and certain truth that he does all things well. 
We are concerned only with facts; and the facts are few, plain, and simple, 
if we receive them as the Scriptures have left them, and content ourselves 
without addition to them by our own speculations. 

HereI might close my remarks ; butthe subjects of interesting inquiry and 
discussion are so many, that the reader will perhaps not be unwilling that 
some points not yet distinctly brought to view should be touched upon. 

The enlightened advocates of imputation do after all disclaim the actual 
transfer of Adam’s sin tohis posterity. They are well aware, that the human 
mind cannot be forced up to such a point as this. But they do still urgently 
contend for the idea, that all Adam’s posterity are punished for his sin, al- 
though they did not in fact commit it; and that in this sense therefore they 
are all guilty of it. Turretin’s view is, that Adam’s sinimputedis the ground 
or cause why men are born with original sin inherent, 2. e., with native de- 
pravity; and this is in his view the penishment inflicted because of Adam’s 
sin imputed to them. And with him many others agree. But Calvin, Ed- 
wards, Stapfer, and others reject the doctrine of the real imputation of 
Adam’s sin to his posterity, while they maintain that native inherent de- 
pravity is the consequence of it, which is chargeable to us as sin. This 
Turretin declares to be no ¢mputation at all, 2. e., a real rejection of his doc- 
trine. Rejecting these views of Turretin, then, Edwards, in order to ac- 
count for it how all men come to be born with ¢xherent sin, labours to show 
that there is a physical and psychological unity between Adam and all his 
posterity. According to him, this would account for the commencement of 
native depravity; and when commenced it isimputed to us as sin, and there- 
fore punishable, on legal ground, with temporal and eternal evil. But Tur- 
retin makes all to be punishment from the outset, and that on the ground 
of the sin of Adam which is actually imputed to his descendants. 

In regard to this favourite view of Edwards’s viz., that we are all physio- 
logically one with Adam, we may well ask: how then can we all be separate 
aud distinct from each other? Are we any more separate from each other, 


588 EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. V. 19. 


than we are from our first parents? Pres. Edwards and many others have 
often and at length represented our connexion with Adam, by the figure of 
a tree and its branches. Conceding this for the present, wemay ask, whether 
the topmost branch is not more nearly and intimately connected with the 
one next below it, than it is with the root; and whether it receives the laws 
of its nature any more from the root, than it does from the branch immedi- 
ately next to it? Then we may-ask again, whether any law exists between 
the branches as they have respect to each other, that is fundamentally dif- 
ferent from, and opposite to, that law by which they are all connected with 
the root? Can the voo¢ communicate that to the topmost branch, which does 
notcome through the next branch below the topmost,’ and conform to the 
laws of its nature? Or has the root some other mode of communication with 
the topmost branch, independently of that through the next intermediate 
one, and in conformity with the laws of its nature ? 

Pres. Edwards says that the declaration of Ezekiel in chap. xviii., viz., 
that ‘the son shall not die for the father,’ has respect only to the relation 
thatexists between Adam’s posterity, and not to that between them and him. 
I make the appeal, however, to all who have not a point to carry, and ask, 
for I feel constrained to ask: Would such an exegesis ofthe prophet Eze- 
kiel have ever been produced, except for the sake of avoiding the force ofa 
consideration, which at least seems to overturn the doctrine of imputation in 
its rigid sense ? ‘The whole doctrine of moral retribution, as built on the 
principles of moral justice, appears, atthe very first view of it which is taken 
by our conscience and our sense of right and wrong, to be consentaneous 
with the principles Jaid down in Ezek. xviii.; and the representations of mo- 
ral retribution in the Scriptures surely accord withthe views of that chapter. 

As to Pres. Edwards, notwithstandingthat he has in one part of his work 
(Orig. Sin, Part IV., chapter 2) strongly denied that there is any positive 
infusion of evil inclinations into our nature, yet he has, in another part of the 
same work, vehemently urged the universality of sin, as a proof that our 
nature has inherited a positive infusion of corruption from Adam; and he 
insists on this at great length, in the first part of his Treatise on Original 
Sin, as an unanswerable argument. In this he has had a multitude of pre- 
decessors and followers. But I find great difficulty in admitting the force 
of this particular argument. Just so far as the human race have had any 
trial in a pure and holy state, just so far the consequence was a universal 
falling from that state. Pres. Edwards himself has taken great pains, in 
another part of his book, to show that we had a more favourable trial in 
the person of Adam, than we should have hadin propria persona. Of course, 
then, he must admit that we a//should have fallen, had we, like Adam, 
been placed in a state of holiness. ‘The corruption, therefore, by his own 
arguments, would have been just as universal as it now is, if all men had 
been placed on trial in a state of innocence. How then can the wniver- 
sality of present corruption prove that men have now a positive infusion 
of corruption and sin, which has been ixherited from Adam ? 

I might even go farther still and aver, that if this argument from the wn7- 
versality of coruption be avalid one to prove ournative and positively sinful 
state; then the same argument will prove, that men would have been greater 
sinners if they had been born in a holy state, than they now are. For as ald 
of mankind who were placedon trial in a state of holiness did fall; and as by 
the statement of Pres. Edwards himself, it must be admitted that all their 
posterity would have fallen in the like condition; and it is clear, that, when 


EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. V. 19. 589 


beings in a holy state sin and fall, they are pre-eminently guilty; so, for 
aught I can see, Pres. Edwards himself being judge, the guilt of men would 
have been just as universal as it now is, if they had been born holy and 
placed on trialas Adam was; while the measure of his guilt would of course 
have been much greater than at present. For why were the fallen angels 
passed by, without any redemption provided for them, if their sin was not 
beyond the reach of mercy because of their previous holy state? And 
why did Adam’s first sin produce such tremendous consequences as no other 
sin among men ever produced, unless its aggravation was exceedingly great, 
in consequence of his having fallen from a state of holiness? And even at 
the present time, is it not true that the sins of Christians are, for obvious 
reasons, more blame worthy than those of the unregenerate? 
- Βα toreturn from these partial digressions: What is more manifest, than 
that writers of the highest character, and most eminent talents, are disagreed 
as to the manner in which they speculate on this subject? And in all these 
speculations, is there not one radical error, viz. that they every where assume 
the fact, that no evil can exist in the universe, at least among intelligent 
rational beings, unless it comes from a sin in some sense their own as the 
cause; and then every one who suffers evil must of course in some way be 
made asinner. Now I grant most fully and readily, that no evil would exist 
in the universe, had there never been any sin in any quarter; for God made 
all things very good, and made all his creatures to be happy. But when one 
part of his rational and moral creatures have sinned, they are not only mis- 
erable themselves, but:they may inflict evil upon others who are innocent. 
This, as has before been said, constitutes the most abominable criminality of 
sin. When Satan had fallen, did he not tempt Adam and Eve in paradise, 
and in a state of perfect innocence? And was it no evil to be subjected to 
the assailing power of his temptation ? Could any mere bodily pain, or even 
natural death itself, be compared to such an evil? It is true then, that the 
innocent are sufferers because of the sin of others. Yet who would say, that 
Adam and Eve were punished for Satan’s transgression? Still more: who 
would venture to say, that Satan’s sin was wnputed to them? 

Can we not suppose, then, that Adam’s posterity suffer on account of his 
sin without being morally guilty of his sin, or without its being properly 
imputed to them? Do not facts before us every day show, that it is the 
nature of sin to do mischief to the innocent as well as the guilty? 

And how are we helped, as to the real difficulties of the case, by the theory 
either of Edwards or of Turretin? When asin is counted to be ours which 
is not so, then there is fictetious guilt and veritable damnation. Does this 
help to allay the doubts of inquiring minds, and to vindicate the justice of 
God? Or can a mere fictitious unity, which contradicts both consciousness 
and matter of fact, reconcile us any better to the mystery of our native de- 
pravity? I confess myself unable to see how such a forced mode of account- 
ing for facts, can help to cast any satisfactory light upon them. Not that I 
disapprove of or condemn the general object of Turretin or Edwards; far 
from this; but I do not see how any more light is to be obtained with respect 
to it, by introducing fictitious guilt, or fictitious unity with Adam, in order 
to account for real and substantial evil. Why not remain content with the 
simple declaration of the apostle, that Adam’s disobedience has been a cause 
of making his posterity sinners, and leave the modus in quo by which this 
is effected where he has left it, viz., without attempting to assign the spe- 
cific manner of operation, certainly without attempting to introduce a meie 
legal fiction, of which the sacred writers have given us no example ? 


590 EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. VY. 19. 


The reader will not be displeased if I here subjoin some leading traits of 
the usual doctrine of the older Protestant Symbols, and a few remarks on 
some of the particulars which they embrace. 

I shall commence what I have to say (which of course must here be only 
in the way of mere hints), with a brief review of some of the leading 
theories which have been proposed and defended, in regard to the in- 
fluence of Adam’s sin upon his posterity. 

I. The usual theory of the Symbols or Creeds of the Reformed Churches, 
and of the leading reformed divines of earlier times, is nearly as follows: 
viz. Original sin consists, (1) In the want of original righteousness. (2) In 
the positive and entire corruption of our nature, ?.é.,in the existence of for- 
bidden lusts and desires connate with us, which are not only the punishment 
of Adam’s sin as imputed to us, but which also are positively evil in them- 
seives and deserving of damnation; they are, moreover, the root and ground 
of all other evil in us. (3) Not only have men lost original righteousness, 
and become by natural generation the subjects of desires and affections posi- 
tively bad, but they have lost their freedom to do good, and are now free 
only to do evil, and in rebus civilibus. (4) All these evils, 2. e., the whole 
of this state and condition, is propagated from one man to another by na- 
tural generation. (5) Hereditary depravity, still, is not a part of our con- 
created substance; it is not one of the puranaturala ;* but itis an invariable 
accident of the same. (6) The prevailing sentiment has been, that the sin 
of Adam is charged to us; and that on account of this, as well as of heredi- 
tary depravity, independently of all actual sin, we are justly subjected to the 
penalty of the second death. Melancthon called this tmpia opinio, at first; 
but he seems gradually to have given way toit; Bretschn. Dogmatik 11... 
Ρ. 86, 2nd edit. (7) The prevailing sentiment has been, that original sin, 
as thus defined, is fixed, constant, invariable, unaffected by time or circum- 
stances, and uniform in all ages, in all nations, and among all individuals, 
Pres. Edwards labours abundantly to establish this idea, for substance, in 
part I. chap, i. § 2, of his treatise on Original Sin. 

The detail of evidence which would establish the correctness of this state- 
ment, is of course excluded from such a work as the present. I must con- 
tent myself with referring to the Protestant Symbols, and to the leading 
divines, especially the older ones, among Protestants. Some discrepancies 
have indeed existed, in respect to more or less of the particulars stated ; 
but of the more rigid school, nearly all, among the older writers, have 
concurred in the substantial part of the statement as given above. 4 

Difficulties not unnaturally arise in the mind, after an attentive examt- 
nation of some particulars in this theory of doctrine; and they are son-e- 
what appalling. I proceed summarily to state a few of them. 

(1) It is common for almost all the writers who advocate the natural 
propagation of Adam’s sin and condemnation, to compare it with the pro- 
pagation of certain tastes, defects, peculiarities of temperament, inclination 
to certain vices, &¢., which are often and every where developing them- 
selves among our race. But, : 

(a) It lies in the way of this comparison, that the propagation in ques- 
tion has nothing of the uniformity or extent which they assign to original 
sin. The son of a man who has one eye or one leg, is not born defective. 


* So the old school divines call thoge qualities which are essential to Luman nature, as such. 
W hat makes a gocd man or a bad one, is one of the accidentia, and not essence: what is necessary 
tc u.nke a man or human being, belongs to the pura naturelia, 


EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. V. 19. 591 


The children of mates have perfect senses The offspring of almost brutal- 
ized parents are sometimes remarkable for opposite qualities. Nothing 
can be more variable, inconstant, and diversified, than every thing of this 
nature is. 

(ὦ) If the descent of original sin is to be explained on such grounds, viz., 
the common law of parents propagating their own qualities; then why are 
not the children of pious parents also pious? At least, why is not original 
sin greatly modified and diminished in the children of such parents? Pe- 
lagius urged this question on Augustine; to which the latter replied: 
‘The children of Jews are born uncircumcised.’ Pelagius might have 
rejoined: ‘The children of parents with one eye, are born with two;’ 
and then the balance would have been again poised. 

When it is urged in the way of explanation and defence of this, that ‘ the 
law of propagation depends not on our immediate ancestor, but on our con- 
nexion with Adam,’ we may remark, that if the propagation is in the man- 
nerstated above, 7. e., agreeably to the physicaé laws of our nature, then why 
must not the qualities propagated depend on our zmmediate ancestor? ‘Take 
now the favourite representation of Pres. Edwards, viz., the root and 
branches of a tree; I ask, then, does the topmost branch derive its sap 
from the one next to it, or immediately from the root? Again; if the law 
of propagation depends solely on our connexion with Adam, the difficulty 
is still undiminished. Adam became penitent after his fall; at least so the 
promises made to him, and the mercy shown him, would seem to imply ; 
and so most divines have admitted. ‘Then as this happened before the 
procreation of his children, why did he not propagate to them his penz- 
tence as well as his sin, his reward as well as his punishment? These 
considerations serve to show, that if it be true that Adam’s sin is propa- 
gated, we cannot appeal to the common and usual laws of cur nature as 

to propagation, in order to support this idea. 

(2) ‘ Original sin,’ it is said, ‘is uniform and invariable, in all cireum- 
stances, ages, and individuals.’ It is, then, strictly considered, not capa- 
ble either of increase, diminution, or modification. The most ardent piety 
diminishes not the measure on which it is communicated; the highest 
profligacy does not add to it. The children of the most eminent saint, 
and of the veriest fiend, would seem to be on the footing of entire equali- 
ty in this respect. 

How can one help asking, now, whether there is indeed any sin among 
men, in their present state (if perhaps what is called the unpardonable 
sin be excepted), which is incapable of diminution, increase, or modifica- 
tion, by any actions whatever on the part of the individual who is the 
subject of it? Does the Bible reveal to us any sin which is incapable of 
diminution by the sanctifying grace of God, by penitence, self-denial, and 
ἃ holy life? Or which is incapable of increase by abandoned wickedness? 
Yet if Pres. Edwards’ views are correct, such a sin is that which he calls 
original, The grace and holiness of the most pious parent, does not hin- 
der its being propagated in all its strength and uniformity. 

Tholuck (Review in Lit. Auzeig., No. 22 seq. 1834) avers that the ad- 
vocates for original sin, as stated above, have not directly taught such uni- 
formity as to guantity. I admit that in a direct way many of them have 
not; because the bare proposal of such a proposition would be likely to 
throw a formidable obstacle in the way of their views. But if this be not 
a fair and necessary deduction from what Edwards has taught on this sub- 


592 EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. VY. 19. 


ject, then J am not able to make one. Tholuck appeals to Baumgarten 
(Evang. Glaub. Th. um. p. 575), in confirmation of hisaverment. But the 
very passage that he quotes shows that the different degrees (Stufen) of 
native depravity of which he speaks, refer to the different Aends of vicious 
temperament with which men are born, and not to the simple sum or quan- 
tity of vitiositas. Why some should have more and some less witiositas (as 
Tholuck holds), he acknowledges to be a matter quite beyond our reach. 
And this is the very thing that I am aiming to show, viz., that to account 
for original sin by the simple law of natural propagation, is an unsatisfac- 
tory and inadequate account of it. 

(3) ‘Original sin,’ we are told, ‘is not concreated; it is not one of the pura 
naturalia ; it is mere accidence, not substance ;’ and yet it is ‘invariable, uni- 
form, always and every where.’ Now logicians tells us, that only substantial 
and essential qualities have such predicates as these last. Does it not seem 
like a contradiction, then; to assign to original sin a nature uniform and in- 
variable, and yet to deny that it is anessential part of the human constitution? 

(4) We are told that ‘original sin is the cause and ground of al actual 
sin.’ Yet we are also told that ‘original sin is uniform and invariable in all. 
Of course, then, all must orzginally be equally depraved; and under the like 
temptations, all must exhibit the very same degrees of wickedness, The 
same cause in the same degree must produce the same effect, whenever there 
are no special counteracting causes. But this is contrary to fact. Not only 
do men in a natural state, who belong to the same neighbourhood, but those 
of the same family, differ widely from each other as to the degree of their 
wickedness. How then can the cause exist, uniform in degree as well as 
nature, which does not produce uniform effects in the same circumstances? 

The real fact seems to be, if we may judge from every day’s experience, 
that all men have more or less a disposition that will lead them to sin, when 
they come to moral development. Nothing can be more certain than that 
all have some of it; and equally certain is it, that it varies exceedingly in 
degrees. If universality had been put for uniformity, there could be no ob- 
jection to the proposition. And in general, we may admit the design of 
those who defend thisto becorrect, while their language is liable toexception. 

(5) If propagation be the ground of transmitting sin, then why are not all 
the sins of all our ancestors, from Adam down to ourselves, brought down 
upon us, and propagated to us? In this way, why must not the sins of 
Adam’s posterity for ever go on in the way of an arithmetical progression? 

The idea of propagating sin, then, in the simple way of natural genera- 
tion, is liable to some appalling objections; at all events it is so, if we in- 
clude the manner in which it has more usually been stated and defended, 

Thereader must not be left, however, to misapprehend my design in prof- 
fering all these objection. It is not with any intention to set aside the fact 
that all men in their natural and unregenerate state have, and in all cases 
have, a disposition that will certainly lead them to sin, under such circum- 
stances as those in which they are placed. Fact and the Scriptures decide 
this, in my apprehension, beyond all appeal. My design is quite a different 
one. It is to show, that to maintain the idea of a physical propagation of 
sin, a physically propagated vitiositas which belonged to Adam after his 
fall; and to maintain this on grounds such as belong to the propagation of 
simple pura naturalia; is an undertaking that is replete with difficulties; 
so replete, that we had better confess our ignorance of the modus, than 
to engage in such an effort in order to explain it. 


EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. ν. 19, 593 


Nor have J said all that might be said upon this topic. Original sin 
Adam had not. He was created so as to be holy. His only sin was ac- 
tual, not original. How could he propagate a, quality or temperament 
which was no part of his proper nature, 2. e., how could he impart that 
which he originally had not? 

Nor is this all. From whom does the sow/ of man come? From our 
earthly parents or our heavenly One? ‘Turretin holds the doctrine tobe 
even heresy, that souls are propagated; and with him agree Edwards, Van 
Maestricht, and the great body of the reformed divines. Let us take the 
matter as they represent it; and then we may in our turn be permitted to 
ask: When the Creator forms human souls, does he infuse originally into 
them pollution and sin, or not? To this they have all strenuously answered 
in the negative. ‘What God makes,’ say they, ‘must be good. He cannot be 
the author of evil.’ Whence, then, the witioscéas in question? Has the ma- 
terial body of itself, which is procreated by human parents, a moral cha- 
racter? Here again they answernegatively. How then comes this ative and 
PROPAGATED Vitiosity. Here Edwards and Turretin undertake to philoso- 
phize in different ways, which I cannot now particularize; but the result in 
- both is this, viz., that the body, by its passions and desires, does so entice 
and win upon the pure soul which it receives, that it at last transforms the 
whole character of the soul, so that it becomes wholly and entirely vicious. 
But here again we are in no small perplexity. How can the weaker and 
moreinsignificant part so win upon and prevailover the soul, formed at first 
(as they admit) in the image of God, or at all events free from every stain 
of pollution? How can mere matter thus overcome and so entirely vanquish 
spirit? A problem this, which ages and generations have not solved by phi- 
losophizing; and which we see no present grounds to expect will be solved 
by any speculations of this nature. The Creationists are surely put to their 
wits, when they come to these ultimate questions; and the Zraducians or 
Propagationists (who have been few hitherto) might be perplexed with many 
questions, which the proposal of their theory would naturally call forth. 

It would seem, then, that Turretin, Edwards, and others who think with 
them, do not after all admit, in the strict sense, of a vetrosity which is pro- 
pagated, or really originaland native, but maintain one which is supervenient, 
and which gradually comes in by the intercourse and union of soul and 
body, and the corrupting influence that the latter exercises over the former. 

But where are we now ? Is this the result of what such mighty minds 
have been able to effect, in the solution of this question? This the light 
that they have scattered over this midnight region ? And must we say the 
sun in his brightness now shines here? Or have we yet to wait and wish 
even for break of day ? 

What then is the result? It is this, at least in my own view; viz., that 
we have made no advance by all the speculations of eighteen centuries, be- 
yond the simple facts as stated by the apostle Paul. “Adam involved all 
his race in a state of sin and death. They are born in such a condition that 
sin will be their first moral act, and sins their only moral acts, unless divine 
grace prevents it. Adam was the original occasion and cause of this mys- 
terious and degenerate state of his posterity. But all these disadvantages 
under which they are now born, are more than compensated by the glorious 
grace and mercy of the gospel.’ What do we know beyond this ? Just no- 
thing, or nothing to any effectual purpose. Why not stop then with the 
apostle, and not hazard our speculations in accounting for facts, the manner 


2P 


E04 | EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. VY. 19: 


of which plainly lies beyond the reach of our investigation? Why not 
cease to require for such speculations all the deference that we are bound 
to pay to the high and holy decisions of eternal truth itself? When men 
come to believe more thoroughly that the Seriptures are the SUFFICIENT 
and ONLY rule of faith and practice, we may hope that more supreme de- 
ference will be paid to the Bible. 

II. Another theory is, that Adam’s sin becomes ours by imputation or 
putatively, while the consequences of his offence, 2. e., punishment or death 
spiritual and temporal, are really and truly ours. 

This theory, in order to be consistent, should of course abandon the 
ground that Adam’s personal sin is propagated to us. In respect to the 
sentiment which constitutes the basis of it, I have already discussed the sub- 
ject of tmputation in so many places in the commentary and in the prece- 
ding Excursus, that it would be superfluous here to resume it at length. 
That it is encompassed with more formidable difficulties, in respect to moral 
justice, than the first theory above examined, must be apparent, one would 
think, to every man who will seriously and thoroughly examine it. 

The obvious difficulties in the way of it are, (1) The szz in this case is 
merely putative, not real and actual. But what is the punishment? Actual 
to be sure, according to the statement of those who advocate this theory; 
and actual, indeed, in a tremendous degree. The punishment begins with 
our being; it is connate and innate, and contains within itself not only the 
commencement of a misery which is naturally without end, but is, at the 
same time, the root and ground of all other sins which we commit, and 
which serve unspeakably to augment our condemnation and misery. Can 
the human mind, now, well conceive that perfect justice would punish with 
actual and everlasting and inevitable corruption and misery, beings who 
are sinners only putatively, t.e., in mere supposition, and not infact ? All 
the elements of our moral nature set themselves spontaneously as it were 
in array against such a representation. It seems to be one of those cases 
which make it necessary for us to be made over again, and have new and 
different faculties, before we can admit its truth. Nor, 

(2) Can it be brought, in any tolerable measure, to accord with the views 
which the Bible gives of divine justice. How can we make it harmonize 
with the declarations in Ezek. xviii.? Or with many other parts of the 
Bible of the same tenor ? But this is not all; for, 

(3) The supposition contains a ὕστερον πρότερον within itself. According 
to the tenor of it, punishment begins before crime. It is coetaneous with 
the original elements of our being. It begins before distinct perception, 
and understanding, and reason, and moral sense, are developed. It begins 
antecedent to all sense of duty, and antecedent to all knowledge of moral 
rule. Such punishment, therefore, precedes transgression, for ““where there 
is no law, there is no transgression;” and surely there is no law, where 
there is no moral sense, nor reason, nor understanding, nor perception. But 
how can justice make punishment precede transgression! ‘ The soul that 
sinneth shall die,” is the order in which heaven has placed the matter. 
Sin comes first; punishment is the fruit or consequence. By the theory 
before us, the reverse is the case. Punishment precedes all personal de- 
merit; and sin follows on as the result of our punishment ! 

Nor is this at all relieved, by saying that ‘sin does not precede punish- 
ment, in this case, inasmuch as it is Adam’s sin for which we are punished ; 
for this is only affirming that peu/ative or supposititious guilt is followed by 


ων 


EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. v. 19. 5S 


veal and actual punishment How does this diminish the difficulty of the 
case? 

‘ But after all,’ it will doubtless be said, ‘ you have repeatedly admitted 
the idea, that all of Adam’s posterity are affected by his offence, and have 
sustained great losses thereby, and are subjected to many evils. Why should 
you now decry the very sentiment which you have so often admitted r’ 

That I fully admit thus much, in regard to the present world and the 
sufferings of our present state, and also as to the moral degradation of our 
nature in consequence of Adam’s fall, readily concede. But this is in my 
view something very different from proper punishment. The fall of Adam 
brought our race into a new state of probation, one exceedingly different in 
several respects from that in which he himself first was. The whole race 
are now heirs by nature of a frail.and dying condition; they are no longer 
in that state in which they are inclined to holiness. And this comes on all 
without any concurrence of their own. But this may still be regarded in 
another light than that of simple punishment. It is trial; it is discipline; 
it is probation saz generis. Adam has brought us into this state, I freely 
concede. But Christ has more than made good all its apparent or real dis- 
advantages. ‘Grace superabounds.” If evils come on our race because of 
Adam’s sin, more, far more, than an equivalent is rendered for them by the 
grace of the gospel. On the whole, then, our present condition is not to 
be viewed in the simple light of punishment for Adam’s sin; but that of 
trial or probation saz generis adapted to our fallen nature, and adapted to 
restore us to the original image of God, in which man was created. Not 
that in itself alone our condition would be such as I have now described; 
but viewed in relation to what Christ has done for us, it has become such. 
What would be proper to preserve beings, perpetually holy, in their pure 
and happy state, may be quite different, in some respects, from that which 
is necessary to restore beings to holiness, who now possess a fallen na- 
ture. All evil, or suffering and trial, in the present world, is not punish- 
ment; and all which we have not brought on ourselves by our own sin 
and folly, may be well regarded in the light of disezpline, which is 
adapted to our present condition. 

There is also an inexpressible difference between our temporary evils here, 
and the endless miseries of a future world. The theory which 1 am oppos- 
ing makes all our race the heirs of the latter, antecedent to any voluntary 
exercise of their own, and merely on the ground of Adam’s offence. Yet 
even here it does not generally preserve consistency. ‘The salvation of 
infants, who have not been guilty of actual sin, is for the most part admit- 
ted. But why this distinction? The theory puts original and actual sin 
on the same ground as to turpitude, or at any rate as to penalty. Why, 
then, draw such a line of distinction? Here, therefore, the force of moral 
feeling against such a view of the subject is clearly developed. Say what 
men may about merely zmputed sin, the human mind cannot be made 
readily to believe in our real desert of damnation for what another has 
done without our knowledge or concurrence. 

For these and other reasons before given, I cannot admit the theory 
above exhibited; nor can I persuade myself that the same or as formid- 
able objections may be justly made against those views on this subject, 
which I have in various places already advocated. 

II. Another explanation of the meaniag of Rom. y. 12—19 has been, that 


596 EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. V. 192 


Aéam first set the example of sinning, and his posterity have only fil- 
lowed his bad example. | 

This explanation denies the degenerate condition of Adam’s posterity, 
and places them, in effect, on the same ground with him in his original state 
of holiness. But this is not only contrary to the numerous declarations of 
the Scriptures, but irrelevant to the subject which the apostle is labouring 
to illustrate. For if only the force of Adam’s example has led his posterity 
to sin, how can we account for the sins of such of his posterity who never 
knew any thing of his example? Or if example be the principle or leading 
cause of all sin, then whose example did Adam follow when he committed 
the first sin? And why charge the occasion of our sins upon Adam, if 
example be the principal ground of them, when they should with much more 
propriety be charged upon those of Adam’s posterity who are emmediately 
connected with each individual that sins? On the whole, this theory is 
palpably unsatisfactory, and insufficient to remove the difficulties in ques- 
tion. Especially must it be so considered, when we take into view the 
expiratory death of Christ as the ground of justification. For if, as the the- 
ory in question represents, the example of Adam was the occasion of the 
sin and death of all men, then must it follow, that the example of Christ 
is the cause of obedience and life to all men. This is, indeed, a doctrine 
which has been taught by some; but clearly not by the apostle Paul, nor 
by any of his colleagues in office. We come then, 

IV. To the simple facts and declarations of Paul and of the Scriptures 
relative to the subject before us. ‘These are, 

1. That Adam’s first sin was connected with the sin and consequent con- 
demnation of all his posterity. It was, in some sense or other a preparatory 
or occasional cause. Setting aside the implication of this in ver. 12 (<ie%ade 
aie διῆλθε), it is expressly asserted in ver. 15 that τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματ! 
οἱ πολλοί ἀπέθανον; in ver. 16 we have τὸ μὲν φὰρ κρίμα ἐξ ἑνὺς εἰς κατάκριμα; 
ia ver.17, τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι ὃ ϑάνατος ἐβασίλευσε διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς; in ver. 
18, δὶ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος, εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα; and in ver. 19, 
διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοί. It seems 
to be impossible, without doing violence to the Scriptures, to deny that 
Adam’s first offenceis here asserted to have a connexion with, or an influence 
upon, the sin and consequent condemnation of all his posterity. But now, 
is not said. Let the reader mark this well. Paul neither asserts that Adam's 
sin is propagated; nor thatit is imputed to us without any act of our own; 
nor that it is ours merely by the force of example. Nor does he say that 
hereditary depravity is the ground and cause of all sin, (how could he say 
this, when Adam sinned without it?) nor that we are finally condemned to 
everlasting death without being actwal sinners. All this, 1 am aware, has 
been often said for him, and in his name; but he does not once say this for 
himself. Why now should we attribute to him our own theories, and then 
insist on their being a part of Scripture? At all events, if we can make 
out any theory as to the modus of original sin, it must be merely by deduc- 
tions from what the apostle has here said, or from other declarations of the 
Scriptures which we can find elsewhere. How much can be made out in 
this latter way, we shall have further occasion to inquire in the sequel. 

2. We may justly gather from the declarations in Rom. ν. 12—19, that 
the evil consequences of Adam’s act may be placed in antithesis to the good 
which Christ has procured forthehumanrace. Theapostle goes no farther, in 


ἃ 


EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. V. 19. 597 


this passage than to declare on the one hand that sin and death were occa- 
sioned by Adam; on the other, that righteousness and life are introduced 
by Christ. But from other parts of his writings we may learn that men 
in a state of nature, z.e., before regeneration, are all destitute of any holi- 
ness; and that all who can sin, have sinned. Of course we necessarily 
draw the inference, that men are born destitute of such a disposition to 
holiness as Adam had in his primitive state; and this from the fact, that 
they never, before regeneration, do any thing which is truly good and holy, 
but always sin in all their actions of a moral nature. This makes a wide 
difference, therefore, between their present natural state and the original 
condition of Adam. And such is the natural state into which they are born, 
as we have reason to conclude, in consequence of Adam’s fall. Although 
theapostle does not specificate the particular point in which the fall injured 
ull men, yet as he often asserts the fact itself that it did injure them, it 
must of course be allowed that in some way or other the truth of this fact 
is developed. In what way, then, is this developed, if not in the manner 
just stated, viz., by our being born into a state destitute of all disposition 
to holiness, and with passions and appetites which, situated as we are, wiil 
certainly lead usto sin, and always lead us to sin in all our actions of ἃ moral 
nature? The fact, that we now have such a nature, and that such is the 
result in respect to our passions and appetites, the Scripture testifies, 
and the experience of all ages and nations testifies. How this came 
about, Paul seems to me to declare in the passage under consideration. 

I must add here, however, in order to guard against all misunderstand- 
ing, that our sinning is not to be regarded as necessary in the sense of being 
compulsive. ‘The possessing or being endowed with faculties to sin, does 
not make men sinners; otherwise Adam and the fallen angels were sinners 
before their first transgression; for faculties to sin they surely had. Zemp- 
tation to sin does not make men sinners; even when they feel its power, 
this feeling of itself does not make them sinners; for our Saviour was 
tempted “in all points as we are,” yet without+sin. ‘The possession of de- 
sires and appetites which are pura naturalia does not makemen sinners; for 
they are essential to men ashuman beings, and our Saviour possessed them, 
as did Adam also before his fall. It may be said, moreover, with truth, 
that moral sense, conscience, reason, judgment, are all attributes of the na- 
turalman; that they are pura naturalia; and these are designed to contend 
against and oppose passions and desires that would lead us to evil, to re- 
strain them, to control them, and to keep them within their proper bounds. 
God has not left men, therefore, even in their fallen and degraded state, in 
a condition in which they have any proper excuse for_their sins; as any 
one may see and must feel, who will attentively read Rom. i. 19—32. ii. 
14, 15. 111. 9—23. It is impossible to overlook the fact here, that the 
apostle considers the abuse of reason and conscience by the heathen, in 
virtue of which they ought to have resisted their sinful irclinations as ren- 
dering them altogether inexcusable before God. 

Whatever, then, may be the degradation in which we are now born (de- 
gradation compared with the original stateof Adam , we are still born moral 
agents, free agents, with facultves to do good, yea, all the faculties that are 
needed. If we are born with passions and affections attached to our natures 
which may lead us to sin, we are also born having a moral power, ἢ, é., con- 
science, within us, to refnonstrate against the abuse of our passions. 

The fact, that the degradation of our whole race is connected with the 


598 EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. V. 19, 


first sin of Adam, is plainly a matter of divine sovereignty, altogether be- 
yond our power to fathom. We can speculate and reason about it, and 
wonder; but it becomes us to bow in humble submission. More than we 
have lost, the gospel assures us has been given to us by Christ. We see 
enough to know, that even in our fallen state our sins cannot be charged 
upon the author of our nature. They are strictly our own. That Adam 
was in some real sense a cause or occasion of our degradation, is clearly 
taught; but that his sin was in fact our own sin—where is this taught? I 
cannot find it. I can find only (what appears to be the sum ofall that Paul 
hastaught relative to this subject) that, such was ourconnexion with Adam, 
his fall has occasioned evil to all his race without exception; that all are 
despoiled of that disposition to holiness which belonged to him in his origi- 
nal state; and that all are in a condition in which ruin will ensue, unless 
there be some deliverer. On the other hand, it is made equally apparent 
that such a deliverer has appeared; that he has by his wonderful grace and 
mercy made such an arrangement, as that the evils which come on all with- 
out exception through the act of Adam, may be made the means of spiri- 
tual good; ke has placed all men, destitute of righteousness such as Adam 
had in his original state, under a dispensation of mercy and pardon, where 
salvation is more accessible and certain to the penitent, than it was in para- 
dise to Adam, while under a mere law dispensation; and for all those who 
bring on themselves the higher penalty of the divine law by their own per- 
sonal ill-desert, he has procured eternal redemption, if they will accept it. 
Is it not true, then, that “grace superabounds?” Are we obliged, then, to 
reject the doctrine of our fall in Adam, as either in itself improbable, or as 
dishonourable to God? We may answer in the negative. 

But I must leave a multitude of interesting questions, because of my 
limits; remembering that my main design is commentary and not didactic 
theology. A few miscellaneous remarks, however, in relation to topics of 
importance, I cannot well refrain from making. 

{, The common theory, which makes what is called original sin inherent, 
ἃ proper sin, worthy in itself of eternal damnation, and the only cause and 
ground of all actual sin, is liable to many objections. 

(1) Adam and the fallen angels had no original enferent sin, in the sense 
here attributed to Adam’s posterity, How then came they to sin? Ifori- 
ginal sin is the only ground and cause of αἰΐ actual sin, then was there no 
ground or cause at all why Adam and the angels sinned. But surely they 
should not admit this, who carry so high the concatenation of causes and 
effects, as to make them as regular and as imperious in the intellectual and 
moral as in the physical world. 

All men, therefore, might have been sinners just as well as Adam, if they 
had all been born without any original inherent sin, such as that ecntended 
for. According to Edwards, who strenuously contends that we had a more 
favourable trial in Adam than we should have had if put upon our own 
basis, it is more certain that all men would have been sinners without any 
original sin, than it was originally that Adam would be a sinner. To ac- 
count, then, for all our actual sin on the ground merely of original inherent 
sin, is manifestly offending against plain and indubitable facts that lie be- 
fore us. 

Nor is the nature of the case at all changed, if one says that all Adam’s 
posterity, in case he had remained obedient, would have been exempt froma 
state of probation, and placed in a state of confirmed holiness, The simple 


=. ee a a a 


EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. ¥V. 19. 099 


question is,Could they, in case they were subjected to trial, sin without 
having any original inherent sin implanted in them? And the answer to 
this is just as plain as the answer to the question: Could Adam sin with- 
out original inherent sin? Besides; there is not a word in all the Bible 
which asserts that such would have been the consequence of Adam’s obe- 
dience as to put all his posterity at once into a state of confirmed holiness 
without trial. All the dealings of God, in heaven and on earth, are against 
such asupposition. All intelligent, rational, and moral beings, without ex- 
ception, of whom we know any thing, have had their trial. Analogy as well 
as the Scriptures would lead us to believe that all must have a probation. 

The true state of the case seems to be simply this. Man in his original 


“state had susceptibility of being excited by sinful enticements; so had 


the fallen angels. On their free will it depended, whether they would 
yield or resist. They yielded; and this was their sin. Had they resisted 
at once, as the Saviour resisted the temptations. proffered to him, their 
susceptibility of being excited by sinful enticements would not have made 
them sinners; for he who created them in a state of innocence, did him- 
self give them such a susceptibility; and he surely is not the author of 
sin. We may add, moreover, that in case of prompt and efficacious re- 
sistance against sinful allurements, the possession of excitability even 
enhances the virtue of the resisting individual. He who resists a thou- 
sand degrees of temptation must surely have more virtue than he who 
can resist but ten; and were a man totally destitute of all susceptibility 
of being excited by temptation, that man could have no virtue, any more 
than a statue or an irrational animal can be virtuous. 

We may regard it then as an original part of human nature, that man 
should possess a susceptibility of excitement by sinful and alluring objects. 
All men, if designed to be placed in a state.of probation, would have posses- 
sed this; and possessing it, they might have sinned; according to Edwards 
they certainly would have sinned. What then is the difference between 
men since the fall, and our first parents before their lapse? Certainly it 
does not consist in the fact, that Adam and Eve could not at all feel the 
power of sinful enticement, and we can and do feel it. To say this would 
be to say that our first parents sinned without any enticement to sin; for 
what cannot be felt is no motive to action. The difference then must lie 
principally in these two things; the first, that the susceptibility of being 
enticed is greatly increased, so greatly as to render ceriain the success of 
temptation in some respect or other to sin, in regard to all the moral acts 
of the unregenerate; the second, that we are placed in a world where 


᾿ς temptation is immeasurably increased beyond what it was in paradise. 


Even there, however, Satan found entrance, and obtained the most fatal 
victory ever yet achieved by him. Who then can say, that no evil could 
befal the innocent? 

(2) To represent original inherent sin, as it is named, as being truly and 
properly sin in him who is the subject of it, and thus to make it the cause 
and ground of all his actual sins, is to make sin the cause of sin. Now that 
one sin is often the cause of another, is certainly true; for it is true that 
the commission of one sin very often leads to another. But if the doctrine 
is to be carried to the extent here maintained, then an endless progression 
of sin must be admitted. For what was the cause of our original sin? Of 
course some other sin, viz., that of Adam. And what was the cause of his? 


-Here, if we will not consider ourselves as yet at the end of the race, we 


600 EXCURSTUS VI. ON ROM. V. 19. 


must say, The devil was the cause of Adam’s first sin. But even then one 
obvious question still remains, viz., What was the cause of the devil’s 
first sin? This of course presents the whole train of reasoning in the 
' light of a reductio ad absurdum. 

(9) Is sin an actor astate? An act, all men would at first spontaneously 
answer. So the scriptures seem to speak: ‘ Sin is a transgression of the 
law.” But still, this answer without limitations would not do entire justice 
to the subject. A man by his own sinful actions may bring himself into a 
state, which as the result of his former wickedness is criminal. The de- 
bauchee who has urged on in his favourite vice until his whole soul is con- 
tinually haunted with images of impurity, is surely taxable with sin for that 
very state or condition. We may and should admit, that whatever vicious 
state is the result of one’s own voluntary actions, for that he is accountable, 
and it is fairly to be imputed to him asacrime. But what is the case with 
the infant and the idiot? Was any voluntary act of theirs concerned with 
what is named their original inherent sin? Certainly not. Turretin and 
Edwards have taken great pains to show, that a sinful disposition precedes 
all voluntary thought, affection, and action. What law, then, have infants 
transgressed? None; for they knew and could know no law; and “where 
there is no law, there is no transgression.” What then is their sin? Is 
there any law of the Author of their being, that they should not be born 
in the state in which they are born; and have they by their birth transgres- 
sed this? I know of no such law: and then birth was to them altogether 
involuntary and unconscious. What law then is transgressed by their being 
born with a susceptibility of feeling the power of temptation? This ques- 
tion those are bound to answer, who make the séate of infants itself a sin. 

The Scriptures do not appear to treat this subject in a way that accords 
with such representations of the characters of infants. The apostle says in 
Rom. ix. 11, “ The children being not yet born, neither having done any 
good or evil,” If it be said, that done good or evil here refers only to the 
external actions, Pres. Edwards and others who maintain the above theory 
have precluded themselves from such a reply, by averring that “nothing is 
good or bad, except as it proceeds from a good or bad principle or disposition 
of the mind;” which principle, with them, is antecedent to all choice and 
action, Consequently, when the apostle denies that the children had done 
either good or evil, he must deny that there was any principle of good or 
evil in them, if this theory be true. Nor is this all. Bad deeds and good 
ones, evil done or good done, every one should know, means, in the language 
of the Bible, every kind of evil and good, whether internal or external. 
When it is said that ** God will reward every man according to his works,” 
the meaning surely is not ‘according to merely his external actions.’ The 
account of infants in Isai, vii. 15, 16; in Jonah iv. 11, and in Deut. i. 39, 
compared with Rom. iv. 15; 1 John iii. 4; James iv. 17; Luke xii. 47, 
48; John ix. 41; xv. 22—24; Rom. i. 20, 21, 32, casts strong light on 
the explicit declaration of St. Paul in Rom, ix. 11. For the substance of 
these declarations of the Scriptures, is, that “to him who knoweth to do 
good, and doeth it not, it is sin ;” that where there is no such knowledge, 
7. é€., ‘* where there is no law, there is no transgression,” for “sin is ἀνομία," 
7. e., want of conformity to the law; of course a voluntary nonconformity 
inust be meant, the voluntary nonconformity of an intelligent, rational, moral. 
Sree agent; for no other is capable of actual sin, unless we would maintain 
that inanimate substances, and brutes, aud idiots, and madmen, are sinners, 


or 


EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. v. 19. 601 


Thus one class of texts above cited, teaches. Another class as clearly shows 
that our sins bear an exact proportion, in respect to their heinousness, to 
the degree of light which we have, anid the motives to holy obedience by 
which. we are urged; all of which of course implies, that if we were in ἃ 
state in which we had no light, and were incapable of perceiving or feeling 
the force of any motives, then we should not be sinners. Another class, 
moreover, developes to us very clearly, that infants are incapable of the 
knowledge in question. Even of the child Zmmanuel this explicitly is as- 
serted; and the assertion is made, moreover, concerning him after his birth, 
Isai. vii. 15, 16. The very same thing is explicitly affirmed also by Moses, 


_ concerning all the very young children of the Israelites: ‘ Your children, 


which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil,” Deut. i. 39. 
To the same purpose is the text in Jonah iv. 11. It is the like view of 
little children, which the Saviour presents, when he says to his disciples: 
‘Except ye be converted, and become as little children ye shall not enter 
into the kingdom of heaven,” Matt. xviii. 3. Again: “ Suffer little chil- 
dren to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven,” Matt. xix. 
14; Mark x. 13; Luke xviii. 15, 16. So likewise the apostle Paul: “How- 
beit, in malice be ye children,” 1 Cor. xiv. 20. These comparisons do not 
imply, indeed, that little children are positively holy. I know of no de- 
claration in the Bible of suck import. But they do seem to imply that 
they are innocent, 1, e., innocuous, 

Let the appeal be made now to every candid and ingenuous mind, and 
the question be fairly urged; What are your first and most natural impres- 
sions, on reading these declarations of the Saviour? Would any other an- 
swer ever be given, except that the Saviour did mean, that the children 
here referred to must at least be free from the vices against which he is 
warning his disciples? And yet these same little children had in them, 
beyond all reasonable question, susceptibilities of being impressed, by and 
by, with motives of ambition, precedence, and preference of self; in other 
words, they had a disposition (in the sense in which I willingly admit this 
term) to be ambitious, and to prefer their own interests or honour. Yet 
they had not arrived at an age when this embryo disposition could develope 
itself. It was yet like the quiet germ in the seed ofa plant, before moisture 
and warmth have called it into living action. It was what their Maker had 
originally given them; at all events, it was what, by his providential man- 
agement of their rise into being, had actually sprung up within them. Now 
on the ground of Pres Edwards, all the wickedness that they could ever 
perpetrate, was already essentially in them, from the very fact that they had 
in them the susceptibilities of being moved or influenced to commit it. 
Every thing is referred repeatedly by him to original temperament or dis- 
position, which is the root and ground and essence of all sin; developments 
being, in his view, nothing more than the indexes of moral turpitude. On 
this ground, then, I appeal to every man who judges independ ntly of sys- 
tems and of symbols, and ask, What can be the Saviour’s meaning, when 
he says to his disciples, ““ Except ye be converted, and become as little chil- 
dren, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven?” Matt. xviii. 3. What 
can be his meaning when he says, "& Of such is the kingdom of heaven?” 
Matt. xix. 14. I do not ask for some possible paraphrase “that may be made 
of these passages, in order to avoid difficulties, and save the éredit of sym- 
bols; but for a plain, honest, straightforward reply, which will be consistent 
with giving the Savioux’s words any intelligible and significant meaning. 


602 EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. Y. 19. 


On the ground of Edwards I cannot make out such a meaning; for on his 
ground, an infant from the first moment of its being has already its moral 
character in full; it is elready as really and truly the enemy of God as it 
ever will orcanbe. It is then to swch, that the kingdom of heaven belongs? 
Are the disciples of Jesus to put on a character like this, in order that they 
may be saved? Does their being converted make them like to such a char- 
acter as this mode of viewing the subject necessarily presents children as 
possessing? These are questions which must be met; that cannot be fairly 
put out of sight, or passed by in silence, or touched so lightly as not 
really to meddle with them. Jesus understood this matter better than 
any of his disciples; and how can we correct his views? 

There is no way that I can perceive of avoiding the difficulties in ques- 
tion, but by maintaining, as Paul does respecting the children of Rebecca, 
that to a certain period of life children have not formed a moral character 
so as to be properly chargeable with sin. Itis then the zznocence of children 
to which the Saviour makes appeal. Innocence, however, does not mean 
holiness in this case, but mere negative freedom from sin; and in the case 
presented in the gospels, freedom from the sin of ambitidus andselfish claims 
to precedence and honour. ‘This was the sole point of comparison and ad- 
monition. The rebuke of Jesus was as much as to say, ‘ You must subdue 
the spirit of ambitiousrivalry, the desire after self-precedence, and becomeas 
simple and unaspiring as little children are, who by reason of theirtender age 
are not yet affected by temptations of this nature.’ Morethan this the nature 
of the case and the object of the Saviour does not require us to understand; 
and more than this the real nature of the case does not permit us to assume. 

I have said, that on the ground of Pres. Edwards, and others who think 
and reason as he does, I cannot make out any intelligible, significant, and 
consistent meaning of such declarations of the Saviour. The reason is ob- 
vious; for according to them sin exists antecedent to all volition, choice, or 
action; it is connate with us, and innate; it is invariable and invincible, for 
it is propagated uniformly by natural generation, so that the children of 
the highest saint have just as much of it as the children of the vilest pro- 
fligate; and what is more than all, it is this very sin, as Edwards most ex- 
plicitly maintains, which is not only the ground and root of all actwal sin, but 
it does itself include all the guilt which a man ean have, inasmuch as all vir- 
tuous or vicious choice is no further virtuous or vicious, except as it pro- 
ceeds from a virtuous temper or disposition of mind which preceded it; 
Edwards on Orig. Sin, p. 149 seq. In fact this author goes so deep into 
this matter, as in reality to do away with actual sin, and resolve all sin 
into the antecedent disposition, 7. 6.5 into original sin or connate depravity, 
p- 150. Thus, before children have any knowledge at all, yea, while they 
are in the womb, they are not only sinners, but all the sin which is ever 
to be committed by them, is then in them in embryo. Gerhard, the ὁ πάνυ 
of the older Lutheran divines, who has written a system of theology in 
twenty-two quarto volumes, says, explicitly: Semen, ex quo formamur, est 
immundum, et peecato infectum,” vol. iv. p. 8326; an assertion which, ex- 
travagant as it may seem, is as capable of defence as that an infant in the 
womb is asinner, in the ordinary sense of this word. Nor is Gerhard alone 
in this extravagance. Augustine said the same things ages ago, in his 
dispute with Pelagius; and Turretin and others vouch for the like senti- 
ments. In what sense, however, s’z can attach to lifeless matter re- 
mains for them and those who agree with them to explain. 


EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. V. 19. 603 


After all, however, a great part of this dispute about the state of infants, 
seems to me to be little more than logomachy among sober and moderate 
men. What cne class of divines call siz, ὃ. e., original zxherent sin, another 
call merely a disposition to sin, or a susceptibility ef being excited to sin. 
Most of the older divines regard this latter quality as being itself criminal 
in some real sense in the sight of God, and as drawing upon itself the full 
penalty of the law. Yet here they are not all agreed; some of them, like 
Pictet, declaring that original sin alone will not occasion final perdition (I. 
p. 429). Dr Doddridge avows, that the doctrine ‘of a rational creature 
being made finally and eternally miserable forthe action of another [for the 


sin of Adam ],which it was no way in his power to prevent, does so ill agree 


with our natural notions of justice, and the repeated declarations of the 
divine word, e. g., Ezek. xviii. 3, 4, 20; Jer. xxxi. 29, 30; Deut. xxiv. 16; 
2 Kings xiv. 6), and with what God has been pleased to say concerning 
his compassion for infants (Jonah iv.), that we must at least wait for the 
plainest and fullest decision of Scripture before we can admit it to be true ;” 
Sect. 11. pp. 112. 118. On p. 201 he says, that “if sin signify (as it com- 
monly does ) an action contrary to divine law, these evil propensities [he is 
speaking of what iscalled original and inherent sin in infants] are not sins.” 
Dr Watts, who is so strenuous for the doctrine of original sin, inhis Psalms 
and Hymns, says that “infants, not the progeny of believers, fall into a 
state of annihilation.” Dr Ridgley, equally strenuous for original inherent 
sin, held that “they fall into a state of everlasting insensibility;” see the 
quotations and references in Doddridge, ut supra. How plainly now does 
all this, and much more that might easily be adduced, show, that there is 
something exceedingly revolting to our ideas of justice, in the eternal per- 
dition of infants merely because of original inherent sin ! 

Guilt, in the strict, full, and proper sense of this word, as designating not 
only exposure to penalty but exposure because of transgression or ill desert, 
guilt in such a sense cannot be predicated of infants. It is in opposition to 
the immutable principles of our moral nature, to predicate sin in its proper 
sense of any being that acts without free choice and knowledge of rule. 
Of course, those who maintain original sin as above stated, must maintain 
it as a distinct and different thing from actual sin. This they themselves 
declare by the very terminology which they apply toit. Others who con- 
fine the definition of sin to that which consists in choice and action, still do not 
deny for substance what that class of divines just named in reality aim at. 
At least for myself I do not. I believe most fully that a susceptibility of 
being excited by sinful enticements, is contemporaneous with our being, 
and in this sense may be called zative, connate, or inate; as much a part of 
our present being as any taste or faculty which we have. It is universal; 
it is invariable, ὁ, 6.5 it always exists in some degree or other. I fully be- 
lieve that it exists in all children to such a degree, that wherever moral de- 
velopment is made by choice or action, it will be sure to lead them to sin. 
What more than this do any of the sober advocates of original inherent sin 
believe? Yet they call this native disposition siz; but I do not, and cannot, 
except in a qualified and figurative way. I can easily call this native dis- 
position a sified one, for the reason that it will lead men to sin; just as I 
speak of a rational faculty on the ground that it enables men to be rational 
or to reason. I.have no objection to such terminology, when it is once well 
understood. But to represent that itself as sé, which the God of nature 
by his own creative power or providence has given me, and which was made 


604 EXCURSUS VI. ON Rom. V. 19. 


as a part of my very nature antecedent to all choice, volition, action, or 
affection; to represent the author of my being as having enstamped on my 
very soul ὦ prima origine the seal of eternal perdition, and as having given 
me by his own sovereign act that which is damnable in itself, and the ne- 
cessary and inevitable cause of all subsequent additional damnation,— 
this is what I shrink from. I cannot force my mind up to this appalling 
point. It will not even stay there if I goad it so as to reach it; no more 
than did the minds of Pictet, Doddridge, Watts, and Ridgley, as we have 
seen above. I see no possible advantage to theology or philology, from 
such a view of the subject. What is explaimed, by introducing a fictitious 
guilt and a fictitious cause of condemnation? Nothing; and fictitious all 
guilt and cause of condemnation must be, when they are not one’s ow in 
the proper sense of this word. 

All the texts that the Scriptures contain, which are appealed to in order 
to confirm the idea that infants are sinners before thought and choice and 
action, are appealed to without any good and stable ground for such an 
argument from them. Theyall goto show whatthe natural or unregenerate 
state of man is; and to this do I most fully accede. They show also, that 
this state of enmity to God begins with the first moral development of our 
being. To quote that ‘‘ we are transgressors from the womb,” and then to 
omit that “we go astray as soon as we are born, speaking lies,” does not 
seem to display much ingenuousness in argument; for to do so is to omit a 
clause which would spoil all the argument that could be deduced from the 
literal application of the first phrase, inasmuch as it shows very plainly 
that the writer did not expect to be, and cannot possibly be li¢eradly under- 
stood. And the same thing is obviously true of all other like cases. But 
my present limits forbid me to go into a particular examination of them. 

In a word, when we admit that all men have within them that tempera- 
ment, disposition, bias, propensity, vitiosity, or whatever else you may 
call it, which will certainly lead them to sin when they come to the age 
of moral development; when we admit that all have it in this degree as a 
sequel or consequence of Adam’s fall, and that all therefore are in a state 
which of itself would surely prove ruinous were it not that divine mercy 
interposes; I say, when all this is fully admitted, I suppose that all which 
need be required, and all that can be scripturally proved, is admitted. 
That some call this disposition and state itself a δύ, does not alter the 
nature of the thing, nor make their creed more orthodox. The question 
is about things, not about names. And as to these, I can only express 
my regret that mere mames should be so strenuously contested for, I 
deeply regret also, that adhering to them, even where they may naturally 
lead to views that are not scriptural, should be deemed a matter of duty 
and orthodoxy. Paul has decided the case beyond any appeal, that chil- 
dren in the womb do neither good nor evil, in Rom. ix. 11. 

The usual objection to such a view of our subject is, that ‘if it be true, 
theninfants need no Saviour.’ ButIdo not feel in any measure embarrassed 
by this objection, How, I ask, is that measure of disposition toward sin, 
or the susceptibility of being excited by sinful enticements, which I have 
fully admitted to belong to all the race of Adam, to be removed? Itis not 
enough to fit a human being for heaven, that he has not been an actual 
sinner. He must have such a disposition as will lead him to delight in 
holiness, in order to be happy there. ‘This the natural man is destitute of, 
Has the mercy then which a Saviour has procured for our fullen and de- 


Ἔν ΚΥΥ A 


νὰ παν  — Se ES 


. 
, 
’ 
. 
| 
7 
} 


EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. V. 19. 605 


senerate race, nothing to do in fitting an infant for heaven? Is there ro 
work of the Spirit necessary in order to secure such a fitness? Surely 
there is no good ground for the objection in question. 

‘ But Christ,’ it is said, " came to save s¢mners, and only such.’ It is true, 
I reply, that he came to save sinners. But if an infant is saved, does the 
atonement of a Saviour extend to his actual sinsP This cannot be asserted 
because it is agreed on all hands, that there is a time when actual sin has 
not yet been committed. Was the atonement made for imputed sin? If 
so, then there is real suffering and atoning sacrifice on the one side, and 
merely supposititious offence or sin on the other. Is this then a doctrine 
of the Bible, that Christ suffered for supposititious sin; and if so, where is 
this taught? Yet those who hold to the salvation of infants must hold that 
Christ died for emputed sin, or else they must hold that the disposition with 


_ which infants are born is itself an actual sin; and then we are forced upon 


the same ground of logomachy, which we have already been over. We 
gain nothing by substituting names for things that do not fit them. 

Is there any more real disagreement, in this case, than that which pro- 
ceeds from dispute about xames? It seems to me that among moderate 
and sober men, there is not. I do not see why the views that I advocate 
do not leave just as much for Christ to accomplish, in order that infants 
should be fitted for heaven, as those views do which will not dispense with 
the peculiar terminology that I have been examining. Of course I do not 
feel the force of the objection under examination. 

In a word; as an infant, dying with all its affections and dispositions in 
embryo, would, should it continue to be just the same, develope itself 
eventually as a sinner, so renewing grace must actually sanctify it; and for 
our fallen race, renewing grace has been purchased only bya Saviour’s blood. 

I meddle not with the question, when the first actual sin commences; 
excepting merely to say, that it commences with the first moral action. 
That is enough. God only can be the competent judge of this. The Scrip- 
tures have nowhere, as it appears to me, decided this question. If they 
have, let the decision be produced; such an one it must be, as will not con- 
tradict what Paul has expressly affirmed. ‘To conclude, 

(1) Those who strenuously maintain that the native disposition of men is 
itself sin, cannot well preserve consistency when they are urged with the 
consequences of this theory. Who gave us being? Who determined the 
qualities with which we should be born? We did not; our parents did 
not; at least there was no voluntary action on their part which could de 
termine the attributes of our nature. Has our Maker then given us a dis- 
position which is itself sin? This question must at last be met; and few 
are stern enough to look it directly in the face. Pres. Edwards could not. 
His courage failed him here. Although his book is mainly built on the 
theory, that sin is antecedent to all choice and action, he not only intimates 
that a different view is reasonable, when urged with the question, Who 
made us what we are? but he occupies a whole chapter in order to establish 
it. In page 28 he says: ‘‘It is agreeable to the sentiments of the best 
divines, that all sin originally comes from a defective or privative cause.” In 
Part IV., chap. ii. p. 807, seq., he has argued at length against the idea of 
“any evil quality being infused, implanted, or wrought into our nature by 
any positive cause or influence whatever, either of God or the creature; or 
of supposing that man is conceived and born with a fountain of evil in his 
heart, such is any thing properly positive” He goes on to aver, that “the 


C06 EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. Υ. 19. 


absence of positive good principles,” and “the withholding of special divine 
influence,” and the : “leaving of the common natural pr inciples of self-love, 
natural appetite, &c., which were in man in INNOCENCE,” is sufficient to 
account for all the corruption that appears among men. A signal instance, 
indeed, of the triumph of the spontaneous feelings of our moral nature 
over the power of system! For he is almost every where gone directly 
counter to this; assuming the common theory of the Protestant creeds, 
viz., that there is a positively unholy principle connate with man, which is 
itself a sin worthy of eternal death, and is the basis of all other sins. But 
here, supposing man ‘to have only the common natural principles which 
were in him in a state of innocence,” he finds no difficulty in accounting 
for it that he becomes altogether corrupt. What is this, but to bear spon- 
taneous testimony to the views of Paul, in Rom. ix. 11, and to the first 
and simple dictates of moral feeling ? 

II. Is it not a matter of surprise, in case the sacred writers did really 
estimate the comparative importance of the subject of our connection with 
Adam as some modern divines have done, that such a deep silence should 
pervade the Old Testament concerning it, and that in the New Testament 
only Paul should break this silence in but two instances (Rom. v. 12—19; 
1 Cor. xv. 22); and in each of these merely for the sake of presenting a 
contrast which is designed to magnify the work of Christ? 

III. Which, now, of the two principal views taken of the natural state 
of man, presents the most cogent reasons for penitence and humility ? 
Which inculcates the deepest sense of our need of a Saviour? 

Can there be any doubt as to the answer? Ifman, falling as he is, has 
still in his fallen state all the faculties necessary to do good, and has a moral 
sense, conscience, judgment, reason; if, “not being yet born, he has not 
done any good or evil” (Rom. ix. 11), and he sins altogether of his own 
free will and choice whenever he does sin; then it is indeed true, that he 
“615 guilty of death;” then is punishment not only threatened, but altogether 
deserved; then is he justly exposed tothe condemnation of “those who have 
known their master’s will and done it not;” then has he incurred the 
awful penalty of those, who “know to do good, but do it not.” Can any 
but an almighty Saviour deliver sinners of such a character as this? 

But supposing now, on the other hand, that men are born with a posi- 
tively evil disposition, which is itself sin, and incurs eternal death antece- 
dent to all choice and action; supposing them to have (as Pres. Edwards 
asserts, p. 27) ‘fa propensity [to sin] that is ¢xvincedle, or a tendency which 
really amounts to fixed, constant, unfailing necessity ; and supposing this 
propensity, thus implanted in their natures, and antecedent to all choice and 
action, is the basis or ground of all subsequent sins; then indeed may men 
need redemption; they are truly in a ruinous state; they are indeed objects 
of our pity and of overwhelming misfortune; but where is the aggravated 
measure of their voluntary guilt, which the Bible charges upon them as 
agents altogether free? Where is the deep sense of accountability for fa- 
culties and moral sense and reason abused? Can there for a moment be 
any hesitation here, as to the question: Which system presents the greater 
guilt of men, the more urgent need of redemption, the more awful exposure 
of sinners, and the unspeakable greatness of their salvation? Tow little, 
then, of justice in averring, as has often been done, that such views as I 
have been giving above of our natural state tend to diminish a sense of our 
need of a Saviour! Nothing can be further from correctness than this. 


EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. VY. 19. 607 


‘The sinner’s guilt is rendered beyond description more aggravated by 
this method of viewing his condition. 

IV. What system agrees best with proper views of God’s justice and 
our own accountability? 

What is our own act, we feel accountable for; not for that which was 
done by another, without any concurrence on our part. This is an immut- 
able law of our moral sense. Justice keeps pace with desert; retributive 
and perfect justice punishes only for personal desert. ‘These are, I had 
almost said, self-evident principles; and can it be that such principles 
leave any doubt how to answer the above question? But, - 
᾿ς V.I still readily ¢ necde, that no theory in regard to the original con- 
dition of our nature can entirely clear up add the difficulties of the case. 
The permission of sin lies at the bottom of all the real difficulty: and this, 
as it isa matter of fact, can never be removed in our present imperfect 
state. Nor whether I say that men are born sinners, and are thus charged 
with Adam’s sin; or whether I say that they are born destitute of original 
holiness, and with passions in embryo which they will at the time of deve- 
lopment abuse, and certainly abuse; the difficulty is not altogether removed, 
The latter is, in some sense surely, an arrangement of an overruling provi- 
dence; for who placed men in their present condition? Even if we say 
merely that a'l men imitate Adam’s example, and so are ruined in this way; 
one might still ask, Who then arranged the condition of men, so that this 
example would come before them? ‘There is no end to such questions, if 
any one is disposed to ask them; and in the same way we might object to 
all other theories that have ever been proposed. The ultimate difficulty 
stillis, an arrangement which admits of sin. The main thing which can be 
said in explanation of this is, that probation implies power and oppor- 
tunity to sin. Without these probation is a mere name, and not a thing. 
The question being decided, that an intelligent being shall be put on 
probation, it is of course decided that he can sin. 

I readily admit, that there is no system of explaining our present con- 
dition as sinners, which can wholly avoid the difficulties in qnestion. But 
they do not seem to me to press equally hard on all systems; at least the 
mode of presenting them in some is less obnoxious than in others. 

I do not see any more reason why a susceptibility in us of feeling the 
power of temptation, or (if one prefers this language) a disposition that 
will lead us to sin when enticed, can be any more objected to as making 
God the author of sin, than that external temptations and enticements 
can be objected to on the same ground. To allow that we are born with 
such a disposition, is not to allow that God has formed us sinners; I mean 
that, on the ground which I defend, it is not allowing this. Our own free 
choice and act must intervene, in order that we should be sinners. But 
on the ground of Edwards and others, we are sinners when we come from 
the Creator’s hands. 

If any one says that it is the same thing, after all, whether we aver that 
men are so made, or whether we say that they are constituted in such a 
way as to become sinners, I must demur to this. Was not Adam origin- 
ally so made and disposed of, as that he would become a sinner? act 
answers this question." Was it, then, the same thing to make him a sin- 
ner ab origine, as to make him a being who could and would sin? This 
is the very gist of the question; and here we may leave it. 

I feel myself compelled, therefore, to reject the predominant theory of 


008 EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. V. 19. 


Pres. Edwards in respect to original sin, and to regard his subordinate one 
(if I may so call it) as being more consonant with the Scriptures and with 
our moral sense and judgment. It is certain that many appalling difficul- 
ties which lie in the way of the former theory, do not stand in the way of 
the latter. This is enough to determine our choice. But in making this 
choice, we need not aver that some difficulties, and (if you please) some 
great ones too, are not common to alltheories. But these may be summed 
up at last in one single thing, viz., the admission of sin into the moral 
world. This is a problem of no easy solution by any system; but as it is 
matter of fact, it is not to be denied, and it must be consistent with divine 
wisdom and goodness. . 

VI. The view which has been given above of Rom. v. 12—19, if correct, 
serves to show that this passage cannot be justly regarded as asserting the 
doctrine of universal salvation. We have seen, that as there are some evils 
which come upon all men without any concurrence of their own, so there 
are blessings and privileges (ἢ, e., the common blessings of providence, the 
means of grace, and above all a dispensation of grace), which are bestowed 
on all without their concurrence. But although, on the one hand, evils do 
indeed come on all without distinction, yet on the other, so far as it respects 
these very evils, they are all capable of being made blessings to the peni- 
tent; and they do indeed become so. So much is true, in regard to the 
present world. In respect to a future world, the higher penalty of sin or 
the second death comes only on those who do themselves sin; their own 
personal act must consummate their destruction: and so in the opposite case, 
eternal redemption, though freely proffered to all, and although all are un- 
der a dispensation of grace, is actually bestowed only on such as repent 
and believe. The comparison of Paul between evils on the one hand, 
and blessings on the other, does not permit us to go farther than this. 
The “ superabounding” of grace has no respect to the number of persons 
(how can this be the case since the evils of Adam’s transgression extend 
to all without exception?), but to the newmber of offences; see Rom. v. 16. 
The use which has often been made of the passage in question for the 
purpose of establishing the doctrine of universal salvation, seems there- 
fore to have no good foundation. ? 

VII. I remark at the close (for to a close I must nowcome unless I would 
write a book on this subject), that Christians can have very little apology 
for bitter disputes with each other about the details of speculation in regard 
to original sin, and for becoming divided in affection on this account. We 
haveseen that Paul enters into no particulars; he indulges in no specula- 
tions. He only asserts the facts, that Adam’s first sin had a connection with 
and influence upon the sin and death of allmen. There he leaves it. We 
gather his views about the particular nature of the facts to which he alludes 
only from other parts of his writings; and even here we meet with mere 
matters of fact, and with nothing of speculation. This is allso clear, that , 
I need not stop to fortify it. Why, then, should Christians dispute and 
divide, by reason of their own speculations, which are superadded to what 
Paul has taught? I may view with apprehension the consequence of some 
speculations on the subject under consideration, because I think they in- 
trench on other very important principles. Yet if my brother, who indulges 
in these speculations, does not in fact intrench on those principles, but fully 
admits them, is it not unjust in me to charge him with purposely endeavour- 
ing to overturn them? The ruined and helpless state of man by nature, 


EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. V. 19. 609 


@. e. of unsanctified man, whether adult or infant, I do most fully and amply 
believe, although the ground and reason and extent of this in adults and 
infants is very diverse; the absolute necessity for all of renewing grace, of 
special sanctification by the Spirit, and of mercy bought by the redeeming 
blood of Christ, I do most fully and amply admit. I regard the views de- 
veloped above, moreover, as representing the case of sinners to be far more 
aggravated and awful than the usual sentiments of the Reformers represent 
it. In consequence of this, the need of a Saviour becomes more conspicu- 
ous, and his help a matter of higher gratitude; for who will be most grate- 
ful, he who was so unfortunate as to fall under sentence of everlasting 


_ death, antecedently to all choice and action of his own, and is delivered 


from it; or he who, having of his own choice and free will incurred the 
penalty, and this by awful aggravations of his guilt, is still delivered from 
its just sentence by the mercy of a Saviour? All! that is practically im- 
portant as to the lost condition of man, the sentiments which I have 
advocated surely maintain. All that is essential in the doctrines of the 
Reformation, in respect to original sin, is received and defended; while, 
in my own view, deeper guilt and danger are attached to the state of the 
natural man than the Reformers themselves attached; and, of course, 
higher need of Jesus and his salvation is exhibited. Is this to deny the 
doctrines of the Reformation? Or is it endeavouring to dissipate mists 
which have in some respects hovered around some of them, in order that 
they may shine forth in all their glory ? Speak conscience—Christian 
kindness—God’s holy word, and I ask for no more. 


I did intend to give a brief sketch of the history of the doctrine under 
consideration ; but I must suppress it for want of room. I shall conclude 
this protracted Excursus, by referring the reader to some select sources of 
reading on the various topics that have been discussed. 

For a view of the doctrines of the Reformed Symbols, he may consult 
Augusti, Corpus Lib. Symbol. Reformatorum 1 vol. 8vo, 1827; containing 
a very full and ample exhibition of the originals, with literary notices, &c. 
Also Winer, Comparative Darstellung des Lehrbegriffs der verschied. 
Christl. Kirchenparteien, 4to, 1824 ; an exceedingly convenient book, which 
deserves a reprint in this country, with additions and corrections. The 
author has given short critical notes, which display great acuteness. 

On the interpretation of Rom. ν. 12—19, besides the commentaries, the 
reader should peruse J. G. Toellner, Theolog. Untersuchungen, I. No. 2, 
Flatt’s Magazin, St. 13, p. 68, seq. Schotii Opuscela, 1,, p. 218, seq. 
Keilii Opuscula, p. 16, seq. Beitraége zur Beford. des vernunf. Denkens, 
Th. 12, p. 45, seq. Bretschneider, Dogmatik. ὃ 124, II. p. 47, seq. Ed- 
wards on Original Sin, part II., chap. IV., ὃ 2. J. Taylor’s Scripture 
Doctrine of Original Sin, and his Key to the Apostolic Writings. All the 
systems of divinity, Calvin, Turretin, Pictet, Gerhard, Quenstedt, Hollaz, 
Storr, Bretschneider, Knapp, Hahn, Reinhard, Doederlein, Episcopius, 
Limborch, Markius, Van Maestricht, Ridgley, Doddridge, Hopkins, and 
all others, of course discuss this passage of Scripture more or less. 

The history of the doctrine of original sin may be found in a very com: 
pressed, but very instructive, form in Bretschneider’s Dogmatth, ὃ 128; also 


in Hahn’s Lehrbuch des Christl. Glaubens, § 80. See also, Walchii Historia 
2Q 


610 EXCURSUS VII. ON ROM. Vit. 5—25. 


doctrine de Peccato Originis, 1738, 4to. 1d. de Pelagianismo ante Pelagium, 
1738, 4to. Augusti, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, p. 301—310. Horn 
de Peceato Originalt, Goett. 1801. Muenscher, Handbuch der Dogmenges- 
chichte, I1., p. 89, seq. LV., p. 148, seq. Wiggers, Pragm. Darstellung des 
Augustinismus und Pelagiannismus, Berl. 1821. Vossii Historia Pelagian- 
ismt. J. Geffhen, Historia Semipelagianismi, Goett. 1826. The result of ex- 
tensive and candid reading, in regard to the history of the doctrine in ques- 
tion, will be, as I must think, a full persuasion, that in the form and shape 
in which this doctrine was maintained by most of the Reformers, it was first 
introduced by Augustine in his dispute with Pelagius; from whose works, 
and those of his friends and followers, it came into the creeds of the Refor- 
mation, and thence has come down to us. The whole subject needs, in this 
country, an investigation and review denovo, such as it has not yet received.* 


EXCURSUS VII. 
On Rom. vii. 5—25 (pp. 806—841). 


Ir is not my design here, to repeat at large what has been already sufli- 
ciently explained in the body of the commentary. But in order to make 
out a view in some good measure complete as to its essential parts, I shall 
simply recapitulate in order the leading considerations already suggested in 
favour of the exegesis above given, without dilating at all upon them; while 
other considerations, not yet suggested, will be more fully stated; after 
which the leading objections to the exegesis adopted will be discussed. 

Before proceeding to execute the task here undertaken, I must beg the 
liberty of making a few remarks on the nature of the case; and also on the 
nature of the proof which is requisite, in order to establish any particular 
interpretation of the whole passage. 

First, it is a just principle of interpretation, that we should understand 
every writer, when this can be done in consonance with the laws of lan- 
guage, as speaking to the purpose which he has immediately before him. 
There are very many truths of the gospel, and many plain and important 
truths, which are not taught in this or that passage of Scripture. The ques- 
tion concerning chap. vii. 5—25 is not, whether it be true that there is a 


* The reader may not be displeased, perhaps, to be furnished with the means of knowing what 
is thought in the mother country, by a leading divine among the orthodox dissenters there, of the 
spirit and tenor of my remarks on the subject of Original Sin in the former edition of this work, 
I quote-from the preface (page x.) of the English edition, written by Dr. J. P, Smith, the 
learned and enlightened Principal of the Homerton Seminary in the suburbs of London. After 
gome commendations of the work in general, in terms such as are hardly proper for me to tran- 
scribe, he speaks thus of the method in which I have treated the subject in question: “In par- 
ticular, eminent clearness and judgment, always under the guidance of a humble and pious 
disposition, appear in educing the cause of condemnation resting upon mankind, the nature and 
effects of the connection between the first man and his descendants, the formal reason of restora- 
tion to the divine favour, and the necessity, progress, and ultimate perfection of a real acquisition 
' of the divine holiness.” How different this is from the judgment of a critic in our own country, 
published about the same time in a periodical, who could find nothing but contradictions and ab- 
surdities in this part of my work, it is not difficult to perceive, Yet Dr. Smith’s orthodoxy 
stands unimpeached and unimpeachable. In our own country, however, there appears to be some, 


“gui celum, terram—o yue iniscent.” 


EXCURSUS VII. ON ROM. vil. 5—25. 611 


contest in the breast of Christians, which might, at least for the most part, 
be well described by the words there found; but, whether such a view 
of the subject is congruous with the present design and argument of the 
apostle. 

Secondly, no theory of interpretation can, in the present case, be duly 
and satisfactorily supported, by appealing merely to the form and intensity 
of particular expressions. If this can be allowed here, then are we certain 
that two opposite theories may be equally well established, viz., that the 
individual whose experience is represented is a saint, andis not one. That 
he is one, may be made out by such expressions as the following: viz., 
σύμφημι τῷ νόμῳ, Ver. 16; τὸ γὰρ ϑέλειν [86. τὸ καλὸν] παράκειταί μοι, Ver. 
18; τῷ Dérover ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν τὸ καλόν; ver. 213 συνήδομαι γὰρ τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ ϑεὸῦ 
κατὰ τὸν ἔσω ἄνγρωπον, Ver. 22: and τῷ μὲν νοΐ δουλεύω νόμῳ ϑεοῦ, ver. 25; 
while with equal certainty and by the same reasoning, we may prove that 
he is not a saint, from ἐγὼ δὲ σαρκικός tims, πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, Ver. 
143 ὃ μισῶ τοῦτο πράσσω, Ver. 153 οὐκ οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐμοὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐστι ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου, 
ἀγαϑόν, ver. 18; τὸ δὲ κατεςγάζεσθαι τὸ καλόν οὐχ εὑρίσκω, Ver. 18; ὃ ob ϑέλω 
κακὸν, τοῦτο πράσσω, Ver. 19; ἐμοὶ τὸ κωκὸν, παράκειται, Ver. 21: βλέπω ἕτερον 
νόμον ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι... . αἰχμωλωτίζοντά με τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, Ver. 28 ; 
σῇ δὲ σαρκὶ δουλεύω] νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας, ver. 25. Stronger language than this, 
viz., “Iam σαρκικός, and sold under sin,” ἃ. 6, a bond-slave to sin, and 
wholly devoted to its service and obedient to its orders, cannot well be 
found in the New Testament. 

Whoever insists, then, that the passage before us must be applied to the 
Christian, because of some strong expressions in it which seem to indicate 
true moral good, should also take notice that, by the very same principles 
of interpretation, he will of course be obliged to concede that a carnal state 
and entire devotedness to the passions and appetites is described. To avoid 
this conclusion, he considers these last expressions as used in a qualified or 
moderated sense, and accounts for them by the fervour of the writer’s feel- 
ings and the nature of the contrast. But who does not see that the very 
same rule, when applied to the passages which seem to indicate moral good 
or holiness, will so modify them as to make the application of them to true 
Christians altogether unnecessary? The reason and conscience of the un- 
sanctified, especially when they are awakened by the terrors of the divine 
law, present sufficient ground to justify the use of the language here em- 
ployed, in such a modified sense as that now supposed. 

In fact, it appears a very plain case, that neither class of commentators, 
that is, neither those who apply chap. vii. 7—25 to Christians, nor those 
who apply it to the unregenerate, can find satisfactory ground for so doing, 
merely in the phraseology, or modes of expression employed. . Hither party 
who adopts this ground, must deny his opponent the same liberties which 
he himself takes; or else involve himself in inextricable difficulties, by ad- 
mitting that the same grounds of explanation may be taken by others, 
which he takes for himself. But he can do neither of these; not the first, 
because the common sense of all men would cry out against him; not the 
last, because this would prove the very contrary of what he holds, or else 
prove that the apostle has really contradicted himself. 

It truth, 10:15 only when men come to the study of the Scriptures, without ἡ 
bringing along with them ὦ priori doctrines and conclusions, that they are 
willing to admit the force of philological considerations, such as have now 


612 EXCURSUS VII ON ROM. vit. 5—25. 


been suggested. These once admitted, it follows as a matter of course, 
that a modified sense is to be given to such particular forms of expression as 
seem to stand in the way of the argument and the object of the writer. 
This we always give in fairly construing the language of men, on all oc- 
casions, whether it be written or spoken. The /teral interpretation of all 
expressions, in an animated contrast, drawn by a man of such powerful 
feeling as Paul, would hardly be contended for in any case in which po-. 
lemic theology was not concerned. Is it proper, then, to insist on such 
a sense, in passages which involve sentiments that are now controverted 
by critics and theologians? ; 

Suppose, now, that one should rigorously insist upon it, that all the 
wordsof our Saviour must be interpreted without any modification, as mean- 
ing what they seem obviously to mean on the first view of them. Take for 
example the declarations, that “it is easier for a camel to go through the 
eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God;” 
also, that ‘‘if he had not come and spoken to the Jews, they would not 
have had sin ;” will any one insist now that these declarations are to be 
literally interpreted ad amussim, and not ad rationem? If so, then it is of 
no use to argue with him in respect to the laws of interpretation; and one 
had better abandon at once the hope of gaining from him a listening ear, 
But if any considerate inquirer is disposed to admit, that hyperbole occa- 
sionally exists in the language of the bible (as also in that of all other books 
which in any way express the feelings of men), then may it be easy for him 
to see and feel that the language in Rom. vii. is capable of modification. 
Nay, mst men, however violent their party feelings, do, after all, in fact, 
admit this principle; for they actually modify that which stands opposed 
to their own views of this passage. ‘This is a practical confession, there- 
fore, of the necessity of modification. And this being agreed upon, either 
impliedly or expressly, the inquiry which then presents itself, is: “ In what 
way is any part of the passage in question to be modified? Must it be so 
᾿ modified as to agree with the context, and the scope of reasoning which 
the writer is aiming at? Or shall it be so modified, as to agree with our 
a priori views of what the writer ought to have said?” As an interpre- 
ter and philologist, I can see but one answer to these questions: and this 
is so plain that it need not be repeated. 

If the reader will now look back, he will see that I have not, in any case, 
laid any particular stress on the form or intensity of expression, in my re- 
marks on vii. 5—25; and the reason of this is evident enough from what 
has already been said above. At the same time, I have supposed that 
the expressions σύμφημι τῷ νόμῳ, συνήδομαι τῷ νόμῳ, τῷ vor δουλεύω νόμῳ, 
&e., are those which the writer intended should be specially modified by 
the reader; and this because the odject of his discourse requires them to 
be modified. This is the ground on which I rest my interpretation; and 
not on the form or strength of single words or phrases, on either side of 
the contrast. 

With these remarks in view, I proceed to offer, in a summary way, my 
reasons for adopting the exegesis which the commentary presents. 

1. The object of the apostle in vii. 7 to viii. 17, is to illustrate and con- 
firm what he had said in vii. 5, 6; and which he had before intimated in vi. 
14. Chap. vii. 7—25 is as plainly a comment on vii. 5, as chap. viii. 1— 
17 is on vii. 6; and antithesis between vii. 7—25 and viii. 1—25, seems to 
be plain and certain. As this is a fundamental point in the interpretation 


EXCURSUS VII. ON ROM. vil. ὅ--28. 613 


of the whole, the reader will allow me to be full and explicit in the discus- 
sion of it. 

At the beginning of chap. viii., we find a distinction made, and a transi- 
tion of the discourse marked by ἄρα νῦν, now then, t. e., in our present 
state, in the present condition of Christians, viz., as contradistinguished 
from their former state. What was this former state? It was a carnal 
state, ἐν σαρκί, Ver. 5; σαρκικός, Ver 14; one in which they were subject to 
the law of sin, ver. 23. What makes this transition the more striking is, 
that in ver. 6 the antithesis between the two conditions there described, is 
pointed out by the very same word as here, viz, by vuv/. 3 

If now we examine particulars in these two discourses (vii. 7—25, and 
viii. 1—17), we shall find them in direct antithesis to each other. E. g., the 
complaint in vii. 24 of miserable subjection to the influence of carnal desires 
stands opposed to the thanks in vii. 25, uttered in reference to the deliver- 
ance which the writer is about to describe. In vii. 23, the person described 
is a captive to sin, ἡ. e., altogether subject to the influence of sinful passions 
and desires; in viii. 2, he is represented as delivered from the law of sin 
and death. In vii. 14, an incessant and irreconcileable opposition is repre- 
sented as existing between the law of God and the person there described; 
in viii. 4, he is represented as possessing the ability and the disposition to 
keep, at least in some good measure, the precepts of the law. In vii. 18, 
the person describedis represented as having no good thing ἐν τῇ σαρκί] αὐτοῦ] 
and as finding no power to effect what is good, even when his mind or con- 
science approves it or would prefer it; in viii. 3, 4, this disability is repre- 
sented as removed. In vii. 5, 14, 18, the person described is represented 
as being ἐν σαρκί, σαρκικός; in vili. 9 he is declared to be οὐ κ ἐν σαρκί. In 
vii. 14 he is represented as the bond-slave of sin; (πεσραμένον ὑπὸ τήν ἁμαρ- 
Tic), z. €., as altogether under the power of sin; in vill. 11, 14 he is repre- 
sented as having the Spirit of God to dwell in him, and as being led, 2 6.; 
influenced or guided, by that Spirit. 

In a word, the whole tenor of the two discourses is such as is adapted to 
make the impression, that they are in antithesis to each other, and that they 
are designed by the writer to be so. ‘This lies on the face ofthem. It is 
only the difficulties which can be raised in regard to subordinate parts, that 
can occasion or sustain any doubts in respect to this subject. 

Indeed, I may well express my convictions derived from a general view 
of the antithetic nature of the two passages in question, the connection in 
which they stand, and the design of the writer, in the words of Tholuck: 
“Truly if one has respect only to the connection of the latter part of Rom. 
vii., with what goes before, and what follows after, it is impossible to ex- 
plain this [the latter part of Rom. vii.] of any one, except of him who is 
still under the law.” 

2. The object of the writer (which is to show that the law is insufficient 
for the sanctification of sinners) would not be effectually promoted by sup- 
posing that he represents the experience of Christians in chap. vii, For if 
Christians, who are of course under grace, and are dead to the law (vi. 14, 
vii. 6), are actually still in the state here represented, then would it follow 
that neither grace nor law hinders them from being the servants of sin. 
But to aver that grace does not effect this, is to contradict viii. 1—17. 

3. The ‘out ensemble of the representation in chap. vii. seems to render 
itcertain, that a true Christian cannot be heredescribed. What is the result 


614 EXCURSUS VII. ON ROM, vir. 5—25. 


of the whole? It is, that notwithstanding all the opposition which the law 
of God and the law of the mind make to sin, yet the person in question 
practises it, and habitually practises it, on all occasions, and under all cir- 
cumstances. In every contest here, the sinful carnal mind comes off vie- 
torious. Is this “overcoming the world?” Is this to be ‘born of God so 
as not to sin?’ Is this ‘loving Christ so as to keep his commandments? 
Is this ‘doing no iniquity? Is this “walking not after the flesh, but after 
the Spirit?’ Ina word, is it possible to make this accord with chap. viii. 
1—17? 

4, If chap. vii. represents the Christian struggle with sin, then what 
is the state in which the Christian goes, as represented in chap. viii.? The 
answer must be: One in which there is no more struggle. But when— 
where—was ever sucha state onearth? It has often been imagined and 
asserted, but not proved. But if now the transition is from a state in 
which sin was altogether predominant, into one in which grace on the 
whole reigns and triumphs, then all is easy and intelligible. On any other 
ground it is inexplicable; at least, it is so to me. 

It were easy to add more reasons; but if these are well-grounded, they 
are sufficient. It is proper, now, briefly to pass in review some of the 
exegesis and the allegations of those, who maintain that a degenerate 
person is described in vii. 7—25. 

(1) Their interpretation (viz., that which most of them give) of vii. 9 
leads, as may be seen in the commentary on vii. 9, to inextricable difficulty, 
and contradiction of the context. It is equally opposed to the uss loguendi, 
and to those parts of the discourse which precede and which follow, 

(2) It is alleged, that the contest described in Rom. vii. 14—25 is one 
which accords with the feelings and experience of every Christian; and 
that he is thus conscious that the interpretation given to it by those who 
apply it to Christians, must be correct. 

This consideration is, in fact, the main dependence of those who sup- 
port the exegesis just named; I mean, that by such an appeal to feeling, 
they produce more conviction on the mind of Christians, than is produced 
by all their other arguments. After all, however, this is far from deter- 
mining the case. Let us look at the subject in all its bearings. 

I concede, in the first place, that Christians have a contest with sin; and 
that this is as plain and certain as it is that they are not wholly sanctified 
in the present life. It is developed by almost every page of Scripture, and 
every day’s experience. That this contest is often a vehement one; that 
the passions rage, yea, that they do sometimes even gain the victory; is 
equally plain and certain. It follows now, of course, that as the language 
of Rom. vii. 14—25 is intended to describe a contest between the good 
principle and the bad one in men, and also a contest in which the evil 
principle comes off victorious; so this language can hardly fail of being 
appropriate, to describe all those cases in a Christian’s experience, in which 
sin triumphs. Every Christian at once recognizes and feels, that such cases 
may be described in language like that which the apostle employs. 

Here is the advantage which the patrons of this opinion enjoy, and which 
they have not failed to push even to its utmost extent. Afterall, however, the 
ground is unfairly taken, and unfairly maintained. For, first, itison/yapartof 
the case. While Christians have many a contest in whichthey areovercome 
by sin, yet they must be victorsin far the greater number of cases, ifthe whole 
be collectively taken, If this be not true then it cannot be true that ‘he who 


EXCURSUS ὙΠ. ON ROM. vil. 5—25. 615 


loveth Christ, keepeth his commandments;’ it cannot be true that ‘they 
who love the law of God, do no iniquity;’ nor true that ‘he who is born 
of God sinneth not;” nor that faith enables him who cherishes it to ‘‘over- 
come the world.” As, however, there is no denying the truth of these 
and the like declarations, and no receding from them, nor explaining them 
away as meaning less than habitual victory over sin; so it follows, that 
when verses 15—25 are applied to Christian experience, they are wrongly 
applied. ‘The person represented in these verses succumbs to sin IN EVERY 
INSTANCE Of contest. 'The Christian must not—cannot—does not, so fight 
against sin. ΤῸ assert this would be to contradict the whole tenor of the 


_ Scriptures; it would be abrogating, at once, all which is declared in so 


pointed a manner, in chap. viii. 1—17. 

Secondly, as I have already-noted, there stands in the way of this inter- 
pretation the fact, that a great transition is marked by the commencement 
of chap. viii.; one of which no satisfactory account can be given, if vil. 
14—25 is to be interpreted as belonging to those who are under grace. 

Thirdly, I repeat the remark, that the question is not, whether what is 
here said mzght be applied to Christians, but whether, from the tenor of 
the context, it appears to be the intention of the writer that it should be 
so applied. This principle cannot fail to settle the question concerning 
such an application. 

In a word; how can it be just reasoning to say, that because verses 14— 
25 may be applied to describe those contests of the Christian with sin in 
which the latter is victorious, therefore it does describe Christian expe- 
rience considered as a whole, and is intended by the writer so to do? What 
can be more certain than that Christian experience is not here to the 
writer’s purpose, when his object is, to represent the truly desperate condition 
of him who ἐξ merely under the law ? 

(3) So far as reasoning or argument is concerned, the main allegation of 
those who apply verses 14—-25 to Christian experience, remains yet to be 
considered. It is this, viz., that ‘the declarations made in these verses 
respecting the internal man, are such as comport only with the state or con- 
dition of a regenerate man; and if this be not admitted, then we must con- 
cede that the unregenerate are subjects of moral good.’ But, 

First, this allegation takes for granted, that the phrases σύμφημι τῷ νόμῳ, 
συνήδωμαι τῷ νόμῳ, ὅσο.» are to be taken in their full strength, without any 
modification. I must ask the reader, now, instead of repeating here what 
I have before said, to look back upon the commentary on verse 22, and 
also, what is said near the beginning of the present Excursus, on the subject 
of deducing arguments in this case merely from the forms of expression, 
without a special reference to the context, and the object which the writer 
has in view. When the whole of this is weighed, I would inquire, whether 
he who interprets chap. vii. 5—25, as having respect to one who is under 
law, has not just as good a claim to insist that σαρκικός, πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν 
ἁμαρτίαν, αἰχμωλωτίζοντά με τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας: &c., shall be taken with- 
out abatement or modification? And now, what is to be the result? 
Plainly this, viz., that the writer has described an impossible state, one in 
which a man is under law, and under grace at one and the same time; one 
in which sin has a power predominant in all cases, and grace a power on 
the whole predominant, at one and the same time. As this cannot be ad- 
mitted, which set of terms in the description must be modified? for one οὗ 


610 } EXCURSUS VII. ON ROM. vit. 5—25. 


them certainly must be The answer to this question may be found, in 
the considerations which have been suggested above. 

But secondly, the whole of the allegation which I am discussing, appears 
to me to rest on ground entirely unsafe and unsatisfactory It will be ade 
mitted by those who are conversant with the dispute about the meaning of 
the passage before us, and are well read in the history of Christian doctrine, 
that Augustine was the first who suggested the idea, that it must be applied 
to Christian experience. This he did, however, in the heat of dispute with 
Pelagius. At an earlier period of his life, he held to the common exegesis 
of the church, as is certain from Prop. XLV. in Epist. ad Rom.; Intelligi- 
tur hinc ille homo describi, gui nondum sub gratia. So in Confess. VII. 21, 
VIII. 5, Ad Simplic. 1. But Pelagius, who denied the fallen state of man, 
urged upon him the declaration above referred to, viz., delighting in the 
law of God after the inner man, serving the law of God with the mind, &c. 
Augustine felt himself pressed by them, and made his escape by protesting 
agaiust the exegesis of his antagonist. He recanted his former opinion 
respecting verses 14-25, and became a strenuous advocate for aninterpre- 
tation which through him has gained an extensive ground among Christians, 
and maintains its footing among many down to the present hour. 

It is difficult to say how far men, and even good men, will sometimes go 
in matters of interpretation and criticism, in order to relieve themselves 
from the straits occasioned by warm dispute, in which their antagonists 
make galling attacks upon them. It was, in all probability, the dispute of 
the church at Rome with the Montanists, which first occasioned it to doubt 
and then to deny, the Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews. Lu- 
ther’s dispute with the Roman Catholics, on the subject of justification by 
faith alone, led him to discard the epistle of James, and to call it, by way 
of contempt, epistola straminea. And the like have many others done, for 
similar reasons. Such seems to have been the ground of Augustine’s new 
exegesis. 

But when we come, now, seriously and calmly to inquire whether there 
is any cause of alarm in respect to the doctrine of the natural man’s de- 
pravity, because Rom. 7—235 is interpreted as having respect to him, we 
can see that this is so far from being the case, that the opposite is true; 1 
mean, that this depravity is rendered much more conspicuous and aggra- 
vated by this exegesis. Let us see if this be not palpable and certain. 

That men are moral beings, does not make them sinners or saints. That 
they have faculties which can distinguish between good and evil, only 
shows that they are capable of doing good or evil, or of being righteous or 
wicked. Conscrence and reason belong to the pura naturalia of the human 
race. Man, in the full and proper sense of this word, cannot exist without 
them. It is no more an evidence, then, that a man is holy or good in the 
Scripture sense of the word, because his reason and conscience distinguish 
good from evil, and testify in behalf of the good, than it is that he is holy 
because he has a moral nature. Such a distinction and such an approba- 
tion are inseparable from the essential nature of reason and conscience. 

Consider, moreover, that the guilt of a sinner who continues to yield to 
the solicitations of his carnal desires, is proportioned entirely to the mea- 
sure of light which he has, and to the inducements set before him to act in 
a different manner. “Where there is no law, there is no transgression.” 
“To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” 
Then of course the sinner, with reason, and ccnscience, and the law of 


EXCURSUS VII. ON ROM. VII. ὅ---25. 617 


God all remonstrating against his conduct, is involved in guilt of the deep- 
est dye, while an offender (if I may so call him) without any of these 
checks, would be no offender at all. ‘‘ He that knoweth his master’s will, 
and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.” And so it ought to 
be. What then can render the person’s case more aggravated, who is de- 
scribed in verses 14—25, than the fact that he resists so much light and 
such powerful motives to pursue a different course? 

Is it, then, denying the depravity of the unregenerate, when we assign 
to them faculties to do good, and light as to their duty, and strong excite- 
ment to perform it, and represent them as after all refusing to do good, 
᾿ς and uniformly hearkening to the voice of sin? 1 appeal to the reason and 
conscience of all men, whether such an accusation against the exegesis in 
question, is not in a high degree unjust and unfounded. Nay, I might go 
farther; I may say, it is the contrary exegesis which is pressed with the 
very difficulty it urges against the other. For if the sinner is born without 
reason and conscience, and is without light; or if he is born with reason 
and conscience that are incapable of distinguishing good from evil, or of 
giving the preference to the former; then his depravity and desperate guilt 
can in no way be made out, consistently with the first principles of a moral 
sense. Of all thecharges then brought against the exegesis which I have 
defended, that of its diminishing the guilt of unregenerate men is the most 
unfounded and unjust. 

I have discussed the principal arguments, so far as I am acquainted with 
them, of those who interpret verses 14—25 as having a relation to Chris- 
tian experience. In regard to the allegation, that Paul here speaks in the 
first person singular, and must therefore be relating his own experience, I 
have already remarked upon it, p. 823, seq. There is no objection to 
allowing it to be Paul’s experience; but when had he such experience? And 
why does he speak of himself? These are the questions to be answered; 
and these I have endeavoured to answer in my remarks at the close of 
vii. 12. 

I cannot conclude this already protracted Excursus, without adverting 
for a moment, to the history of the exegesis introduced by Augustine. 

As has been already stated, the most ancient Fathers of the Church, with- 
out a dissenting voice, so far as we have any means of ascertaining their 
views, were united in the belief, that an wnregenerate, unsanctified person is 
described in vii. 5—25. So Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, and Theo- 
doret. In this state did the views of the church remain down to the time 
of Augustine, whose first opinion, and whose change of it, have already 
been described. How unnecessary such an evasion was, on his part, of the 
argument of Pelagius, we have already seen. For surely the more light 
the mind of a natural man has, the more his conscience approves the divine 
law and sides with it, the deeper and more dreadful is his guilt when he 
sins against all these. And as the person described by the apostle is one 
over whom sin in every case of contest presented does actually obtain the 
victory, he must of course be a person of much deeper and more desperate 
depravity than any one can be, whose natural faculties are all degraded and 
depraved in their very origin; as Augustine held the faculties of men to be, 
after his dispute with Pelagius. 

The exegesis of Augustine, however, found favour in the churches where 
his sentiments respecting original sin were received; and prevailed very 
extensively and for a long time. In like manaer with him, have Anselm, 


018 EXCURSUS VIL. ON ROM. vir. D—25. 


Thomas Aquinas, Cornelius a Lapide, Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, 
Spener, Buddzus, Koppe, and many others, explained the passage in ques- 
tion; and most commentators among evangelical Christians in Great Britain 
and in this country, have followed the same opinion. 

On the other hand, besides all the ancient Greek, and some of the Latin 
Fathers, there are many distinguished men who have defended the senti- 
ment which has been above exhibited. Such are Erasmus, Raphel, Epis- 
copius, Limborch, Turretin, Le Clerc, Heumann, Bucer, Schomer, Franke, 
G. Arnold, Bengel, Reinhard, Storr, Flatt, Knapp, Tholuck, and (so far 
as I know) all the evangelical commentators of the present time on the con- 
tinent of Europe. Most of the English episcopal church, also, for many 
years, and not a few of the Scotch, Dutch, and English presbyterian and 
congregational divines, have adopted the same interpretation. I cannot 
but believe that the time is not far distant, when there will be but one 
opinion among intelligent Christians, about the passage in question; as there 
was but one before the dispute of Augustine with Pelagius. In this respect 
there is ground of trust, that the ancient and modern churches will yet 
fully harmonize. 

From the above brief historical sketch it would seem, that in general 
those who have admitted Augustine’s view of the doctrine of original sin, 
have also admitted his exegesis of Rom, vii. 5—25. To this, however, 
there are exceptions; and of late, not a few exceptions. More thorough, 
partial, and unbiassed examination, will probably make an entire change in 
the views of Christians in general, even of those who have been educated 
in the belief of the Augustinian exegesis. ‘This was my own lot; and for 
some time after I began the critical study of the Scriptures, I continued to 
advocate this method of interpretation. But an often repeated and more 
attentive study of the epistle to the Romans has brought me to believe, 
that such an exegesis is forbidden by the nature of the case, the usus 
loquendi, and the object of the writer; and that it is impossible to maintain 
it on impartial and critical grounds. 

I am fully aware of the strength of feeling which exists relative to this 
subject inthe minds of many. I am sorry to add, that the manner in which 
it is sometimes defended can never contribute to advance the interests of 
simple truth. When will it be believed, that scorn is not critical acumen, 
and that calling men heretics is not an argument to convince such as take 
the liberty to think and examine for themselves? When will such appeals 
cease? And when shall we have reasons instead of assertions, criticismin 
the place of denunciation, and a full practical exhibition of the truth, that 
the simple testimony of the divine word stands immeasurably high above 
all human authority? 

(Dr Smith, in the preface mentioned in a note on page 610, has expressed in a very kind 
and brotherly manner, his dissent from my exegesis of Rom. vii. 5—25. His opinion is, 
that it is a copy of Paul’s experience, after he was stricken down on the plains of Damas- 
cus, and before he obtained a hope by faith in Christ Jesus. In his view, “inceptive but 
genuine love of holiness and hatred of all sin, were now implanted in his [Paul’s] heart by 
the diyineshand.” In other words, he had already passed from a law-state to a state of 
grace, and a new spiritual life was actually begun within him. On this account he applies 
to him, in their usual meaning, all the expressions which evince an approbation of holiness 
and obedience to the law; and as to all the strong expressions used in respect to sinning 
and practical opposition to the law, he construes them in a modified way, and accounts for 
them on the ground of deep and impassioned feeling in respect to sinfulness. The passage 
(in pref. pp. xi, xii.) in which he has thus expressed his views, is a vivid and powerful one, 


and does honour to his head and heart. But I have not been able to. find in it matter of 
conviction that my exegesis is erroneous. The whole controyersy turns ultimately on the 


EXCURSUS VIII. ON ROM. Vill. 19. 619 


simple point, Which method of interpretation best harmonizes with the main scope and design 
of the writer in chap. vii., vili.? To settle this by particular phraseology, is certainly a desperate 
undertaking. If the literal sense is to be urged, then both sides can undoubtedly be established, 
viz., that Paul is speaking of a man who is a Christian, and of one whois not. Scarcely any 
language in the Bible is stronger on either side. We must give up all hope, then, of coming to 
any satisfactory issue in this way; as I think I have abundantly shown in the above Excursus. 
What then is the main scope and object of the apostle’s discourse here ? I can find no other than 
this, viz., to show the utter inefficacy of the law to deliver men from a state of sin and death, and 
the necessity of betaking themselves to the grace proffered by the gospel. What can be more 
obvious than that a law-state is what is described on the one hand (vii. 7—25), and. a gospel-state 
or state of grace on the other (viii. 1—17)? If there be not an antithesis, a marked, and pointed, 
and powerful one here, between'the two states as described in these two portions of Scripture, I 
confess myself unable to discern what antithesis is. And if there be antithesis, how can a state 
of grace be described.in chap, vii. 7—25? I can see no answer to this question, except it be, that 


_. the state of distressing apprehension, and contest, and oppesition, described in chap. vii. is suc- 


ceeded by one full of peace and hope as described in chap. viiia But how does such a represen- 
tation accomplish the apostle’s object? The man is 8678, as described in chap. vii. although in 
trouble ; whereas the deliverance in chap. viii. is ‘from the law of sin and death.” The last. could 
not be said to be effected by the transition in question; it was already effected, if Dr. S be inthe 
right, when the man was in the conflict described in chap. vii. Does the man goover then, as 
represented in chap. viii. into a state of entire perfection, so that he is freed from all the struggle 
with sin? Dr. S. would be one of the last to acknowledge this. It remains then, that the man de- 
scribed in chap. vii. is in a law-state. No other method of interpretation will make good the 
obvious antithesis; no other will fully answer the main scope and design of the apostle. 

Another friend, well known in this country, and also very dear to me, the Rev. Dr. Henderson, 
of Highbury College, in the precincts of London, who has also written a short prefatory com- 
mendation of the English edition of my commentary, in a letter to me dated June 24, 1833, has 
expressed his views in regard to my exegesis of the passage in question, in the following manner: 
“Your view of chap. vii. meets with my approbation. JZdeem it most important. The other view 
seems greatly calculated to keep up and foster a low state of Christianity.” When such enlight- 
ened, sober, pious, and judicious divines think so differently about Rom. vii. 7—25, what better 
can one do, than to investigate for himself and fully satisfy hisown mind? This is what I have 
endeavoured to do, and what both ofthe much honoured friends mentioned above cheerfully en- 
courage me to do, even in cases where I may differ from them. Would that the same noble and 
generous spirit might every where take the place of the jealous and morbid Cynicism, in which 
some seem to move as their most congenial element!] 


EXCURSUS VIIL 
On κτισις in Rom. viii. 19 (p. 369—371). 


THOLUCK argues that χείσις is employed as described in the commentary 
from two sources; first, from the connexion in which it stands, and the 
predicates which are assigned to it; and secondly, from both Jewish and 
Christian belief respecting the renewal of the natural world at a future 
period. 

Under the first head of argument he says, that the more usual meaning 
of χείσις is the natural world. If he means by this to aver, that the word 
has this signification in a majority of the instances in which it is employed 
in the New Testament, an inspection of the examples in the commentary 
will convince the reader that he is mistaken. Bui still, the fact that the 
word may very naturally, in itself considered, be employed in such a way, 
I freely concede; and this I have already more than once intimated. 

His next argument is, that αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις in ver. 21, indicates a descent 
from the noble to the ignoble part of creation. He means that αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις 


620 EXCURSUS VIII. ON ROM. VIII. 19. 


signifies as much as to say: ‘ Not only does the nobler part of creation 
long for a disclosure of the glory which is to be revealed, but even this 
inferior creation, of which I am now speaking, also jongs for the period 
when this disclosure shall be made.” 

The answer to this is, that such an exegesis of αὐτὴ ἡ χείσις Would ne- 
_ cessarily imply, that a higher and nobler χτήσις had been already mentioned 
in the preceding context, with which this inferior one is now compared. 
Had such mention been made, there would be some ground for the remark 
ot Tholuck. But as there is no mention of any thing of this nature, I do 
not see how we can give a comparative sense to αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις. In order to 
do this, must not something have been mentioned with which we may com- 
pare it? The expectation of the xobder part of creation is first mentioned 
in ver. 23, υἱοθεσίαν ἁπεκδεχόμενοι. The force of αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις must there- 
fore be made out in another way. Paul had just said, ἡ χείσις is made sub- 
ject to a frail and perishing state (ματαιότητι), with the hope,i.e.,in a condi- 
tion or in circumstances in which it is permitted to hope, that zai αὐτὴ ἡ 
κτίσις, even this very same creaturemay be freed, &c. Tholuck does not seem 
to have noted, that the expression is not simply αὐτὴ, but x«i αὑτὴ; which 
necessarily refers it to the preceding xrjorc, and means that even the very 
same κτίσις, Viz., the frail and perishing χτίσις which had just been described 
is still placed in a state in which it may indulge the hope of deliverance, 
&c. The force of xa) αὐτή, then, seems to consist in designating that very 
same perishing xriorg which the writer had just described, as being in a 
state to indulge a hope of obtaining freedom from this wretched condition. 
If this be correct, then its force does not consist in any implied comparison 
with a nobler χτίσις, which indulged the like hopes. 

A third reason of Tholuck for the signification which he here assigns 
for xriois is, that in ver. 22, 7 ἃ σ a ἡ χτίσις is mentioned. 

But why the apostle could not say πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις, if he meant the world 
of rational beings, just as well as he could if he meant the world of nature, 
I am not aware; and more especially so, since in Mark xvi. 15, and Col. i. 
23, this very expression is made use of (πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει---εἐν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει) 
in order to denote the universality of the rational world. 

Finally, Tholuck avers that the predicates ματαιότης and dovasia τῇς 
Q3og%¢ (verses 20, 21,) more naturally belong to the material creation. 

But this I cannot see. Above all, I cannot see it, when the apostle says, 
that the χτίσις was made subject ματαιότητι, οὐχ, ἑκοῦσα, not voluntarily, not 
of its own choice. Toes this belong more naturally, then, to the material 
than the rational creation? Of which is choice more naturally predicated? 
Then again, is not ματα της, a frail and dying state, as easily and naturally 
to be predicated uf men, as it is of the material world? And taken as a 
whole, is not the latter far less subject to ματαιότης than the race of men? 
Comp. ματαιότης in Eph. iv. 17—19; Rom. i. 21, seq. Once more, is not 
δουλεία τῇς φϑορᾶς, the bondage of a mortal or perishing condition, as natu~ 
rally predicated of men as it is of the material world? Rather, is it not 
much more naturally applied to human beings, than it is to the world in 
which they live? So Paul seems to have thought, and so expressed him- 
self; see gSoeé in 1 Cor. xv. 50. Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 18, 19; i. 4. 

None of the reasons, then, assigned by Tholuck for the exegesis which 


EXCURSUS VIII. ON ROM. Vitt. 19. 621 


he defends, that are drawn from the exigency of the passage, seem to be 
well-grounded. So much istrue, viz., that the wsws loquendi in itself consid- 
ered would admit the sense which he gives to xrioic, But that the extgentia 
loci renders probable this meaning, does not seem in any good degree to be 
made out. 

We come, next, to the second class of reasons assigned by Tholuck in 
defence of his interpretation; viz., those derivedfrom the Jewish and Chris- 
tian belief, respecting the renovation of the natural world at a future period. 

The passages of Scriptures mainly relied on are 2 Pet. iii. 7—12; Rev. 
xxi. 1; Isai. xi. 6, seq., ἰχν. 17, seq; Heb. xii. 26. seq. Hints of the same 
doctrine are supposed to be contained in Matt. xiii. 38, seq.; xix. 28, and 
Acts iii. 21. Brief suggestions respecting passages of such a nature, are 
all which any reader will here expect. 

All the force of argument from these and the like passages must rest on 


_ a Literal interpretation of them. But how can passages of this nature be 


urged as having a literal meaning, after reading Rev. xxi., and xxii. 1—d? 
Or if this does not satisfy the mind, then compare passages of a similar 
nature, viz., those which have respect to the Messiah’s kingdom on earth, 
his spiritual kingdom before the end of time, and during the gathering in 
of his saints. What immeasurable absurdities and contradictions must be 
involved in a literal exegesis here? For example, from Isai. ii. 1—4, and 
Micah iv. 1—3, one might prove that in the time of the Messiah, the tem- 
ple of the Lord is to be built on a mountain, placed upon the top of the 
highest mountains any where to be found, and that there all the nations of 
the earth will assemble to offer their devotions. Isai. xi. 6—9 would prove 
that all the brute creation are to experience an absolute change of their 
very nature; the lion is to eat straw like the ox; the asp and the cockatrice 
are no more to retain their venomous power. Isa. ix. 7 would prove that 
the literal throne of David is to be occupied by the Messiah, and that he is 
torulein his capacity as literal king, without intermission and without end. 
Tsai. xxv. 6—8 would prove that a feast of fat things and of rich wines is 
to be made for all nations, and that all suffering and sorrow and death are 
to be abolished. Isai. xxxv. 1—10 would prove that the deserts of the 
earth are to be filled with living streams and exuberant herbage and trees, 
and that all the ransomed of the Lord are to repair to the literal Mount 
Zion, where they will have uninterrupted and everlasting pleasure. Isai. 
xliii. 18—21 would prove the same thing respecting the deserts; and also 
that the beasts of the field, the dragons, and the owls, shall be among the’ 
worshippers of God. Isai. lv. 1—10 would prove, not only that wine and 
milk are to be had, in the days of the Messiah, without money and without 
price, but that the mountains and the hills will break forth into singing, 
and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Isai. lx. 15—-22 would 
prove that Israel is to feed on the milk of the Gentiles, and to be nourished 
by the breasts of kings; and also that there will be no sun by day now moon 
by night, but God himself by his own splendour is to make their ever- 
lasting light so that no more night will ever be known. (The very same 
things are said respecting the new Jerusalem, in Rev. xxi. 23; are they 
literal there?) Isai. Ixvi. 22—-24 would prove that all nations are to come 
from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, and 
worship before the Lord in Jerusalem. 

Why now are not such passages just as reasonably construed in a Literal 


manner, as those which have respect to the kingdom of God after the gene- 


022 EXCURSUS VIII. ON ROM. virr. 19. 


ralresurrection? Must it not be true, that in its very nature this kingdom 


will be still more spiritual than that of the Messiah during its preparatory 
or disciplinary state? This will not be denied, Is there no reason a forte- 
ort, then, why we should understand the language respecting this kingdom 
as figurative, in just the same manner as we are obliged to do with regard 
to all the descriptions in the Bible of the heavenly world? Nay, I may 
add, that the idea of Flatt, Tholuck, and many others, about a renewed 
earth becoming the literal abode of the blessed, after the resurrection, is 
directly at variance with other declarations of the Scriptures. Paul re- 
presents Christians at the general resurrection ascaught up to meet the Lord 
an the air, i. eas ascending to heaven, and as thenceforth being ever with 
the Lord, viz., in heaven, 1 Thess. iv. 17. So all the Bible; believers are 
to ‘dwell with God, to be with him, to see his face, to enjoy his presence, 
to stand at his right hand.’ The apostle Paul says, that at the resurrection 
‘this mortal will put on immortality, that flesh and blood cannot inherit 
the kingdom of God, that this natural body is to become a spiritual body, 
and to be made like unto Christ’s glorified body,’ 1 Cor. xv. 44, 50, 53; 
and all this, that saints may be glorified with Christ. But where is Christ’s 
body? And where does he dwell? And where do believers go, when 
they are “ absent from the body,” in order that they may be “ present with 
the Lord?” Our Saviour represents the saintsat the resurrection as becom- 
ing incapable of all earthly pleasures, and as being made like to the angels 
of God in heaven, Matt. xxii. 29, 50. And must we believe, after all this, 
that the present earth, when it has undergone an emendation, is still to be 
the abode of spiritual bodies, of saints made like to their Lord and Re- 
deemer? Believe it who may, I must first see all these and the like texts 
blotted out from the Bible; nay, my whole views respecting the very na- 
ture of future happiness must undergo an entire transformation, as great as 
the earth itself is supposed by the writers in question to undergo, before I 
can admit such an exegesis as they defend. It contradicts the express de- 
clarations of the Saviour and of his apostles. 

I have a difficulty, also, as to the logical commentary of the passage, pro- 
vided we adopt the interpretation defended by Tholuck. Let us examine 
this fora moment. The apostle begins by saying, that present afflictions 
should not be laid to heart by Christians, because of the future glory which 
is reserved for them. "What now is demanded, in order that this should be 
believed, and that Christians should regulate their thoughts and conduct 
by it? Why plainly nothing more is required, than that they should cherish 
a confirmed belief of it, a steadfast hope that such glory will be bestowed. 
Such is the conclusion in ver. 25. But how is this hope to he animated 
and supported? Plainly by considerations which add to the assurance, 
that future glory is in prospect. And what are these? They are, that God 
has enstamped on our very nature the desire of such a state, and that he 
has placed us in such a frail and dying condition, as that the whole human 
race naturally and instinctively look to such a state and hope forit. The 
present is manifestly a state of trial; even Christians, who have the earnest 
of future glory within themselves, are not exempt from this. But the very 
fact that we are in a state of trial and probation, naturally points to an end 
or result of this. And what is such an end, but a state of future happiness? 
for here happiness in a higher sense is not to be attained. — 

But suppose now that the material world is that which sighs after and 
hopes for deliverance from its present frail and perishable state; has this a 


om 


—— 


EXCURSUS VIII. ON ROM. virt. 19. 623 


direct bearing on the subject in question? The answer must be in the 
negative; so thought Turretin, as his notes most clearly show. But then 
it may be said, that it has a bearing upon it by way of implication; be- 
cause the renovation of the material world is necessarily connected with 
the future happiness of the saints. In this point of view I acknowledge 
it would not be irrelevant. But is not this less direct, less forcible, less 
convincing, than the appeal to the wants and desires of which every 
human breast is conscious? Of two modes of exegesis, either of which is 
possible, I must prefer that which imparts the most life and energy to the 
reasoning and argument of the writer. 

I have another substantial difficulty with the interpretation under exam- 
ination. Itis this: if χεήσις means the material or natural world, on the one 
hand, and αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἔχοντες means Christians on the 
other (which Tholuck and Flatt both avow), then here is a daewna which 
cannot well be imagined or accounted for. Christians are subject to a frail 
and dying state, but are looking for a better one; and the natural world 
is in the same circumstances; but the world of men in general, the world 
of rational beings whv are not regenerate, have no concern or interest in 
all this; they are not even mentioned. Can it be supposed now, that the 
apostle has made such an important, unspeakably important, omission as 
this, in such a discourse and in such a connection? The xatural, physical 
world brought into the account, but the world of perishing men left out! 
I must have confirmation “strong as proof from holy writ,” to make me 
adopt an interpretation that offers such a manifest incongruity. 

* Such are my reasons for not regarding as weighty the arguments offered 
by the advocates of the interpretation I am examining; and such are my 
positive grounds for rejecting it. 

I come, at last, to the interpretation which 1 have supposed above to 
be the correct and proper one, viz., that χείσις most probably means men, 
mankind in general, as stated above, No. 2, ὁ. That such an interpretation 
is agreeable to the wsus loguendt, is clear from the statement there made. 
It only remains, then, to inquire, whether τέ accords with the nature of the 
passage in which the word stands, and whether it can be vindicated from 
the objections made to tt. 

As to its accordance with the nature of the passage, and with the ar- 
gument which the writer purposes to employ, I must refer the reader (in 
order to save repetition) to my general statement above (p. 362) of the 
meaning of the passage, and also to what has been just said respecting the 
logic of the passage. It remains, then, only that I take some notice of 
the objections urged against this interpretation. Flatt has done the most 
justice to such objections; and I shall therefore examine the arguments 
which he produces. 

1. “ Κτίσις, in verses 19—21, is distinguished from υἱοὶ Θεοῦ. How, 
then, can it mean all men, of which υἱοὶ Θεοῦ constitute a part ?’ 

The answer to this is, that there is not an antithesis here of χτήσις to υἱοὶ 
Θεοῦ (which the objection assumes), but only a distinction of species from 
genus. ‘ Mankind,’ says the apostle, 7. 6.7 men in general, ‘ have always been 
in a frail and dying state, have felt this, and have longed after a higher and 
better state.’ In ver. 23 he goes on to say: ‘Even those whom one might 
expect to be exempt from this, 2. e., Christians themselves, who already have 
an earnest of future glory, have not been exempt from such a condition.’ 


624 EXCURSUS VIII. ON ROM. vit. 19. 


Here is indeed a distinction, but no antithesis. In fact the nature of the 
case does not admit of antithesis; for both the χτήσις and of τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ 
πνεύματος ἔχοντες are partakers of the same frail and dying state. The dis- 
tinction, therefore, is of a different nature from that of antithesis. It is 
made, as I apprehend, in the manner stated above. 

2. ‘ How could the apostle represent χείσις in this sense, ὁ, e., heathen 
men and all unconverted men, as seeking and sighing after the liberty of 
the children of God, when he every where avers that they are estranged from 
God, and at enmity with him, and are ignorant of the things of the Spirit?’ 

But here the argumentum ad hominem may be applied to good purpose. 
How could the apostle represent the natural or inanimate creation as long- 
ing after such a happiness, or any other like to it? You reply, ‘It isa 
prosopopeeia.’ It is so, truly, if you interpret it rightly; and personifica- 
tion of the boldest kind, so bold that I know not how we can admit it, 
while it has so much of incongruity in it. 

I quit this part of the subject, however, and proceed. Is there not in 
the human breast a longing and sighing after immortality? Hear Cicero, 
who puts these words into the mouth of Cato, when speaking of Elysium: 
“Ὁ preclarum diem, cum ad illud divinorum animorum concilium cetum- 
que proficiscar, cumque ex hac turba et colluvione discedam! Proficiscar 
enim, non ad eos solum viros, de quibus ante dixi; verum etiam ad Catonem 
meum, quo nemo vir melior natus est, nemo pietate prestantior;” De Senec- 
tute. Listen also to Seneca: “ Juvabat de zternitate animorum quzrere, 
imo mehercule credere. Credebam enim facile opinionibus magnorum vir- 
orum, rem gratissimam promittentium, magis quam probantium. Dabam 
me spei tante.” In other passages the same writer descants upon the 
meanness of affairs pertaining to the present life, unless one rises in his 
views above human objects. ‘Sic creatura,” adds Turretin, to whom I 
am indebted for these quotations, “sic creatura abhorrebat ἃ vanitate cui 
subjecta est. Sic sperabat se aliquando a seryitute illa liberatum iri;” 
Opp. II. 361. 

Who can refuse to see how applicable all this is to our present purpose ? 
Tholuck and Flatt would themselves say, that this sighing after immortality 
is one of the most convincing of all arguments that men are truly immor- 
tal. Does not the fact, that all nations have had their Elysium, establish 
the allegation that such a longing is innate, 2. e., pertaining to our rational 
nature? Or if this be questioned, is it not certain, that the present unsa- 
tisfying, frail, dying condition of the human race does lead them to feel 
their need of a better state, and to sigh after it? 

This does not prove, indeed, that they long for the heaven of the Chris- 
tian, as a place of purity and freedom from all sin. ‘That they have speci- 
fie and correct views of this and desires after it, is not true; and if they 
had, we could not suppose them to desire it in respect to its holiness. But 
it is not necessary to suppose this, in reference to the object of the apostle’s 
argument. It is not a specific view of heaven simply as a place of purity 
and holiness, which he here represents Christians themselves as entertain- 
ing; for in ver. 23 he adverts to them as hoping for the redemption. of their 
bodies, %. e., an exemption from the pains and sufferings to which their frail 
bodies are continually exposed. May not the unconverted long to be de- 
livered from suffering and sorrow? Do they not in this respect desire fu- 
ture happiness? I acknowledge that they are unwilling to employ proper 


EXCURSUS VIII. ON ROM. vit. 19. 625 


means of obtaining it; and that there are actually, as the Christian revela- 
tion holds it up to view, things in it which would not of themselves be at all 
desirable to the unconverted; but do they not, after all, in some definite and 
important sense, hope and wish for another and better world? This will 
not be denied, after reading the above extracts from Cicero and Seneca; 
and this being admitted, it is all which theaposile’s argument here demands. 

What he means to say, I take to be in substance this: ‘The very nature 
and condition of the human race point to a future state; they declare that 
this is an imperfect, frail, dying, unhappy state; that man does not, and 
cannot, attain the end of his being here; and even Christians, supported 
_ as they are by the earnest of a future glory, still find themselves obliged to 
sympathize with all others in these sufferings, sorrows, and deferred hopes.’ 

I acknowledge, that if one insists on construing the revelation of the sons 
of God, and the glorious liberty of the children of God, as being so specific 
that they cannot be predicated of the hopes of the world at large, he may 
make difficulty with the exegesis which I am defending. So Flatt and 
Tholuck have done. But how should they both have overlooked the fact, 
that this same rigid interpretation applied to their own mode of construing 
ἀτίσις, makes a difficulty stillgreater? For in what possible sense can the 
natural world be hoping for or expecting the glorious liberty of the children 
of God? I mean, if these expressions be interpreted (as they, in making 
their objections, insist that they must be) in their specific and rigid sense. 

If there be any difficulty here, then, it is evidently less on the ground 
which I take, than on the other. Itis not enough to make objections toa 
particular mode of interpretation; but one should show that his own is not 
liable to objections still greater. And surely it must be deemed a greater 
difficulty to represent the natural world as expecting the glorious hberty of 
the children of God, than it is to suppose that immortal beings, made in the 
image of God, and made sensible of the insufficiency of the present world 
to render them happy, should anxiously look for another and better state. 
It is not necessary for the apostle’s argument, to show that they look for 
this in the way that Christianity would direct them to do, nor even that 
they have any good grounds in their present state to expect personally a 
happier condition in future. If even the wicked, who love this world, are 
not satisfied with it, and are made to sigh after another and more perfect 
state, then follows what the apostle has designed to urge, viz., the con- 
clusion that God has strongly impressed on our whole race the conviction 
that there is a better state, and that it is highly needed. 

The ground which Noesselt and others take respecting xriors, viz, that it 
means Christians in general, would indeed free the whole passage from any 
objections of the kind under consideration, inasmuch as they might be said 
without any limitation, to expect the revelation of the sons of God. But this 
interpretation is pressed with other insuperable difficulties, as has already 
been stated. It makes no distinction between χείσις and υἱοὶ ϑεοῦ or τέχνα 
Ὡεοῦ in verses 19, 21, when the writer has plainly made one; and then it 
understands αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἔχοντες Of the apostles only, or 
such Christians as were endowed with miraculous gifts; which cannot, in 
any tolerable manner, be defended. 

I come, then, by virtue of such considerations as have been suggested, 
to prefer the interpretation which assigns to χτίσις the sense of mankind, men 
in general, to any other of the proposed methods of explanation. But in so 


28 


626 EXCURSUS IX. ON ROM. VIII. 28: 


doing, I do not aver that there are no difficulties in the way, or that an in- 
genious critic can raise none. ‘This is not the question. The more proper 
question is, whether the difficulties that lie in the way of this interpreta- 
tion are not less than those which can be thrown in the way of any of 
the other methods which have been discussed? JI can only say, that they 
seem to me clearly to be less; and therefore I feel compelled to embrace 
this exegesis until a more probable one is proposed. It has been defended 
by Augustine, Lightfoot, Locke, J. A. Turretin, Semler, Rosenmuller, Am- 
mon, Usteri, Keil, and many others. This, indeed, is in itself no adequate 
reason for receiving it; but it shows, at least, that the difficulties attending 
it have not been regarded as insuperable by men of very different theolo- 
gical views, and of no small attainments. 


EXCURSUS IX. 
On Rom. viii. 28, τοῖς κατὰ xpddsow κλητοῖς οὖσι. (P- 378.) 


THE difficulty arising from this passage, and the temptation to deny or 
obscure what I must believe to beits plain and inevitable meaning, are both 
suggested by the following question: ‘‘ How can Godhave had an eterna/pur- 
pose as to those who are to be saved, and yet men be free agents, free even 
in the matter oftheir own repentance and conversion?” It will not be ex- 
pected, of course, that I should here discuss at length a metaphysical ques- 
tion, which the disputes and contentions of more than 4000 years have not 
settled; for in every age and nation, where religious inquiries have been 
pursued, the difficulty before us has for substance presented itself to the 
mindsof thinking men. One may say that three parties exist, and perhaps 
have in every age existed, in respect to it; viz., (1) Those who embrace the 
doctrine of fatality, and therefore deny the proper free agency of man. (2) 
Those who deny the divine decrees or eternal purposes of God, and make in 
effect ἃ kind of independent agency of man. (3) Those who believe both in 
the divine foreknowledge, purpose, or decree (for the difference between these 
is in zame only, not in reality), and also in the entire free agency of man, 
Among this latter class, I would choose my lot. The Scriptures seem to 
me plainly to hold forth both of these doctrines. Yea, so far are the sacred 
writers from apprehending any inconsistency in them, that they bring them 
both forward (7. e., divine agency and purpose, and human agency and pur- 
pose) at one and the same time, not seeming even to apprehend that any 
one will speculate on them so as to make out any contradiction. For ex- 
ample: Acts ii. 23, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counseland 
foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified 
and slain;” ὦ. e., the determinate counsel (ὡρισμένη βουλή) and foreknow- 
ledge of God did not render the hands of the Jews less wicked, who cruci- 
fied the Saviour. Of course they must have acted in a voluntary manner, 
7, e., a8 agents altogether free; for a sin involuntary, ¢. e., without consent 
of the will, is a contradiction in terms, so far as moral turpitudeis concerned. 

Again; Phil. ii, 12, 15, “ Work out your own salvation with fear and 
trembling; ἴον ἐξ ts God who workethin you both to will and todo, of his good 
pleasure;” 7. e., the very ground on which I urge diligence in the matter 
of your Christian duties is, that God helps you both to will and to do. 


EXCURSUS IX. ON ROM. VIII. 28. 627 


These are a specimen of the philosophy (if I may so speak) of the sacred 
writers. And of such philosophy the Bible is full. The attributes of an 
omniscient God, his designs, his very nature, prove that he must have pur- 
poses; and such as will not be frustrated. Prediction or prophecy proves 
this, and puts it beyond all rational contradiction. Is it uncertain, whether 
what the prophets of God have foretold will come to pass? Yet are not 
the men by whom the things foretold are brought to pass, free agents in all 
cases of this nature, just as they were in the crucifixion of the Lord of glory? 

But you will ask: ‘ How is this?? To which I answer at once: I do 
not know. The manner in which God’s purposes are consistent with free 
_ agency, I do not pretend to know. The fact that they are consistent, I do 
know; because I am conscious of being a free agent; I am as certain of it as 
I am of my own existence. Iam equally certain that God is omniscient, 
and has always been so; and therefore he must have always perfectly 
known every thing that will take place. If he knew it with certainty (and 
if he did not, then he did not know it at all), then is it wncertain whether it 
will take place? And if it is certain, then how does this differ from what 
is said to be decreed? The name decree, indeed, seems to have carried 
along with it a kind of terror to many minds; but, so far as I can see, it 
implies neither more nor less than divine purpose or divine will, And can 
it be, that sober-minded Christians will, on reflection, maintain that there 
is no divine purpose or will? : 

To all the arguments adduced from such a statement of facts, which can 
be alleged in order to prove the doctrine of fatalism, I have only to reply, 
that fact itself disproves this; for we are conscious of being free agents. 
The Scriptures disprove this: for they every where treat men as free agents. 
And this is enough; for these are the two highest possible sources of 
proof, and with these we ought to rest satisfied. ‘To what can we make 
a convincing appeal, if not to these? 

As to the question: How is our free agency made to consist with God’s 
eternal purposes? I have said nothing; for I know nothing. And as to 
the question, how ten thousand thousand other things, which I believe, and 
which all men believe, can be true or take place, no one in the present 
world knows, or ever will know, any thing; e.g., How do heat, moisture, 
and earth make one plant green and another red, one nutritive and another 
poisonous, in the very same bed of earth? yet we all believe the fact that 
they do. 

Who can show it to be absurd, now, that God should have had an 
eternal purpose, and yet man be a free agent ? 

Does the certain knowledge we now have of a past event, destroy the free 
agency of those who were concerned in bringing about that event? Did 
any previous knowledge of the same necessarily interfere with their free 
agency? And as to free agency itself; cannot God make a creature in his 
own image, free like himself, rational like himself, the originator of thoughts 
and volitions like himself ? Can this be disproved? The fact that we are 
dependent beings, will not prove that we may not be free agents as to the 
exercise of the powers with which we are endowed,—free in a sense like 
to that in which God himself, as a rational being, is free. Nor will this 
establish any contingency or uncertainty of events, in the universe. Could not 
God as well foresee what would be the free and voluntary thought of men, 
in consequence of the powers which he should give them, as he could fore- 
see thoughts and volitions which would proceed from the operation of ex- 


028 EXCURSUS X. ON ROM. VIIT. 28—30. 


‘ternal causes upon them? Until this can be denied on the ground of rea- 
son and argument, the sentiment in question is not justly liable to the 
charge of introducing the doctrine of casual contingency or uncertainty 
into the plans of the divine mind. 

I only add, that when. we say, ‘ God has had an eternal purpose in re- 
Spect to those who are called’ (and the apostle does say this, Eph. iii. 11; 
2 Tim. i. 9), we speak ἀνθρωποπάθως. With God there is no time. ‘A 
thousand years are as one day, and one day as a thousand years.’) With 
him it is an ETERNAL Now, as it has often and forcibly been expressed. 
. So the expressions, pre-destination, roRE-ordination, &e., strictly speak- 
ing, are anthropopathic. ‘Non prm-videntia, sed PRo-videntia potius 
dicitur,’ says Boethius, De consol. Philos. i.-5. prop. 6. 

If God has any purposes, they are eternal. We must, then, either deny 
that he has any purposes, or else admit their eternal existence; and this 
being admitted, the κλητοὶ κατὰ πρόθεσιν are truly such as the apostle de- 
scribes them to be in the sequel of chap. viii. ᾿ς 


EXCURSUS X. 
On Rom. viii. 23—30. (p. 382). 


On the disputes which have arisen from the paragraph in verses 283— 
30, I shall not comment at large in this place; but I cannot pass by the 
subject without making a few remarks. 

That man should be entirely dependent on God, and yet be a free agent 
at the same time, presents, it has been often asserted, an impossibility, an 
absurdity, a contradiction of terms, a scheme of fatalism, &c. After all, 
however, the mere disciple of Naturalism, who sets revelation entirely aside, 
but allows the natural perfections of the Godhead (among which are omni- 
science and omnipotence), falls into the very same difficulties inevitably, 
which he puts solely to the account of Revelation. If there be a God, a 
Creator, almighty and omniscient, then we are perfectly and entirely de- 
pendent on him; from everlasting moreover, be has known all that we are 
and shall be; he has known this with absolute certainty ; and if so, then what 
we are and shall be is not fortuitous. This the disciple of nature can no 
more deny, than the disciple of revelation. And this involves at once all 
the real difficulties which are charged to the account of those who be- 
lieve in the plain and simple allegations of the passage before us. 

Once admit the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent Creator, and the 
difficulty of reconciling dependence and free agency comes up of course; 
and it bears equally, moreover, on every system which admits this truth, 
It is wonderful that this should not be more extensively seen and felt by 
writers, who are in the habit of charging all difficulties of this nature to 
the opinions of those who favour the sentiments of Calvin. 

After all, if there be any force in the objections made against the doctrine 
in question, it arvses only from reasoning analogically in respect to the laws 
and qualities of matter and those of mind. In a piece of physical ma- 
chinery, every motion will be in accordance with the laws of motion and 


ES ——— $< = 


<< Oe 


EXCURSUS X. ON ROM. VIII. 28—30. 629 


mechanical power, and all necessarily according to the contrivance of the 
mechanist; 2. e., the laws of matter and motion remaining the same, the 
result which is calculated upon is necessary; and it is always the same, for 
there is no volition in the machine, nothing to resist, alter, or modify the 
influence to which it is subjected. 

Not so in the world of immaterial and sprrztual being. Man is made zn 
the image of God ; therefore he has a free agency like to that of his Maker. 
From its very nature, this free agency is incapable of mechanical control. 
Motives, arguments, inducements may move, convince, persuade; but they 
cannot control by a necessity like that in the world of matter. That they 

_cannot, is owing to the very nature itself of a free agent, who is no longer 
free, if he have no wléimate choice and power of his own. The Bible every 
where ascribes such a power tocman. He resists light, knowledge, persua- 
sion; he remains unmoved (at least undetermined) by all the motives: 
drawn from earth, heaven, and hell; he resists and grieves the Spirit of. 
God himself. Such are the representations of the Scripture. Is this re- 
presentation truth or fiction? Which is the same as to ask: Are men in 

fact free agents, or only so in mame and appearance? 

That they are in fact free, is whatI believe. Nor can I be persuaded, 
that illustrations of free agency drawn from the material world, are in any 
tolerable measure apposite to our subject. Our soulsare sprrit, not matter.: 
They are like the God who made them; not like the dust on which we 
tread. All arguments, then, drawn from cause or causation and effect in 
the material world, and applied to the subject of speritual agency and in- 
fluence, are wrongly applied, and cannot serve to cast any thing but dark-: 
ness on this deeply interesting subject. 

All the deductions in respect to fatalism moreover, which are made out 
and charged upon those who hold the doctrine of God’s foreknowledge and 
eternal purposes, are made out by a process of reasoning which has its basis 
in material analogies. A regular, necessitous, mechanical concatenation of 
cause and effect, altogether like that in the world of nature, is predicated 
of the doctrine of the divine purposes or decrees; and then the charge of 
fatalism and absurdity of course follows. Let those who would avoid this 
take good care, then, not to reason about sparz¢ in the same way as they do 
about matter. 

Whonow can prove, that the Spirit of God may not influence the human 
mind, in a manner perfectly consistent withits entire freeagency—influence | 
it to accept the offers of salvation, and become obymoggos τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Jeo? 
No one. He can no more do this, than he can prove that one man cannot 
influence another, without impairing his freedom of action; an event which 
takes place. every hour, and in all parts of this lower world. Above all, 
who can show that truth can influence men while they remain free, and yet 
that the Spirit, who is the author of all truth, cannot operate as effectually 
and with as little interference with free agency, as the truth which he has 
revealed? So little foundatiom is there for the charge of fatalism, against 
the doctrine of divine influence upon the souls of men! 

Those who are saved freely repent, freely believe, freely accept the terms 
of salvation. Why can they not be as free under the influence of the 
Spirit, as they are under the influence of the truth which he has revealed? 
And none but penitents will besaved. There is no room then to say, that. 
a belief in the divine eternal purposes makes it a matter of indifference 
whether a man lives a virtuous and holy life or not, and that if he is to be 


630 EXCURSUS X. ON ROM. Vill. 28—30. 


saved, he will be saved, let him do what he may. The plain and certain 
truth is, that he ‘is zo¢ to be saved’ unless he become conformed to the 
image of Christ, and that without holiness no man shall see the Lord. This 
is God’s everlasting purpose, his eternal decree; and sooner than this can 
be violated, heaven and earth shall pass away. ΑἹ] accusations of such a 
nature, then, against the doctrine in question, properly understood, are un- 
grounded and unjust. 

In regard to the dispute whether God προώρισε τοὺς κλιητούς, from his 
mere good pleasure, or from a foresight of their faith and good works; it is 
easy to see, that the paragraph cf the epistle which is under. consideration 
does not decide on this. So far the question seems to be fully settled, by 
other texts of Scripture, viz., that the merit or obedience of the κλητοί was 
not the ground or reason of their regeneration and sanctification. This 
would be assuming that holiness existed before it did exist; that it was the 
ground of that which it followed only as a consequence. 

On the other hand; as to the decretum absolutum, as it has been called, 
viz., the determination that the xayro/ should be saved, irrespectively of 
their character and actions, one cannot well see how this is to be made out. 
So much must be true, viz., that they are not regenerated, sanctified, or 
saved, on account of merit ; allis of grace, pure grace. If this be all that any 
one means by the decretum absolutum, there can be no reasonable objection 
made to it. But on the other hand; as God is omniscient, and therefore 
must know every part of every man’s character, through all stages of his 
being; as all things, in their fullest extent, must have always been naked 
and open to his view; so we cannot once imagine, that any decree or pur- 
pose in respect to the χλητοί canhave been made trrespectively of their whole 
character. Such an irrespection (if I may use the word) is impossible. 
God has never determined, and from his holy nature never can determine 
to save any except such as are conformed to the image of his Son. All 
stands or falls together. A decretum absolutum, 7. e., a decree which should 
separate these, or have no regard to these, would be a different one from 
that which the apostle has stated; and I may add, different from what we 
can ever imagine to be possible. .« 

To what purpose, then, can disputes,on such a question be raised or 
fostered? Happy would it be for the church, had there been no occasion 
in times past to mourn over them! It is truly important to distinguish that 
which is revealed, from that which is not; and to content ourselves with 
the one, and dismiss the other. “ Secret things belong to the Lord our 
God; but things revealed to us and our children.” 

I will only add, that the phrase, God out of his mere good pleasure, is very 
liable to be misunderstood and perverted, as it often has been. My own 
apprehension is, that most of those who employ it, use it merely to signify 
without regard to merit, without being induced by considerations of meritorious 
obedience. In this sense, as applied to God in respect to his purposes of 
renewing and sanctifying sinners, it is strictly true. Merit they have not; 
obedience they exhibit not, while in their unrenewed and unsanctified state. 
But then the phrase is often understood as conveying the idea, that God, 
in a way merely arbitrary, 7. e., without any good reasons whatever, did 
choose some to everlasting life. This can never be true at all; no, notin 
any sense whatever. All that can ever be true is, that God has done this, 
while the reasons are entirely unknown to us. He surely never did and never 


EXCURSUS X. ON ROM. Vill. 28—30. 631 


will determine or do any thing, without the highest and best reasons; 
although he may not unfold them to us. 

On the whole it is to be regretted that a phrase so easily misunderstood 
and perverted as that in question, should have been introduced into the 
technology of religion. It would have been much better to have avoided 
the disputes it has occasioned, by phraseology more explicit and unam- 
biguous. 

One remark more, and I dismiss the whole subject. If I do not greatly © 
err, the principal objections which serious and candid minds feel to the 
doctrine of predestination (as it is called), 2. e., of foreknowledge and eter- 
nal purpose on the part of God, arises from what I must think to be a mis- 
taken application of the principles of analogical reasoning. ‘How,’ it is 
asked, ‘can God have determined from eternity who are to be saved,’?. e., 
whom he will effectually call, and justify, and sanctify, and bring to glory, 
and yet men be free to choose or refuse salvation? And the difficulty in 
all this is, that they suppose a regular concatenation of causes and influence 
must be arranged in the spiritual world, which will just as mechanically and 
certainly ‘bring about the end, as that gravitation will make a stone fall to 
the earth. They join, with all this transfer of physical causation and effect 
over to spiritual things, the idea, that regard to the character or efforts of 
those who are saved is to be left out of the question; and then they make out, 
in their own minds, the ideaof fatalism, an undistinguishing fatalism, which 
acts thus and so, merely because it chooses to do this or that, without any 
good and sufficient reason whatever. And taking such a view of the doc- 
trine of predestination, of course they think it very reasonable to reject it. 

In answer to all this it may be said (1), That it is impossible even to im- 
agine a case in which God can be supposed not to have before him the whole 
of every individual character of those who belong to the χλητοί, (2) All 
that the Scripture teaches in regard to the ground or reason of his purpose of 
mercy towards these, is, that it is zo¢ on account of merit or desert in them; 
they are regenerated, and sanctified, and saved through grace, grace only; 
* not of work, lest any man should boast.” Farther than this negative as- 
sertion, the Scripture does not go; and who knows any thing more than 
what is revealed concerning it? (3) The Bible, and experience, and reason, 
all unite in giving testimony of the highest kind which the human mind can 
receive, that whatever may be the purposes of God, men in Fact are free 
agents ; free in all their spiritual exercises, as well as any others: and what 
is thus zz fact conciliated or harmonized, cannot in its own nature be con- 
tradictory or absurd. (4) The eternal purpose of God is no more in the 
way of free agency, than his present purpose; for his present purpose is 
neither more nor less than his eternal one, and his eternal one neither more 
nor less than his present one. With him there is one eternal Now; andall 
ideas of causation, and concatenation of causes and influence, drawn from 
sensible objects that are temporary and successive, only serve to mislead the 
mind in regard to God, when they are applied to him. (5) All the diffi- 
culties which ever have been or ever can be raised in regard to the foreor- 
dination or decree of God, concentre at last in one single point, viz., How 
can a creature be perfectly dependent, entirely under the control and within 
the power of another, and yet be free? And all the difficulty here comes 
at last upon the ow ; it lies notin the fact; for the fact that such is the 
case, is put beyond all doubt by the testimony of Scripture and experience. 

Now as this How lies equally in the way of all who admit the existence 


632 EXCURSUS XI. ON ROM. Ix. 17. 


of an omniscient and omnipotent Creator—I say equally in the way of all 
such, for this is plainly the case unless they are fatalists—and since, more- 
over, this question is plainly beyond the boundaries of human knowledge; 
it does not seem to me reasonable to declaim against those who admit that 
the doctrine of divine foreknowledge implies of course divine purpose; and 
that divine purpose must have been always the same, inasmuch as God is 
immutable, “the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.” At any rate, no 
arguments of an a priori nature can serve to set aside the plain, direct, in- 
evitable meaning of the passage in Rom. viii. 28, seq. Nor if it presents 
a difficulty, can we free ourselves from this, even if we reject revelation. 
A God almighty and omniscient, and a creature frail and entirely depen- 
dent, and yet free, always and every where present the same paradox to 
the human understanding. The Jew, the Mahommedan, and the Theist, 
are obliged to encounter it, in common with the Christian of strict creed 
and principles. 


EXCURSUS XI. 
On Rom. ix. 17, εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐξήγειρά σε (p. 431). 


But what is the meaning of the entire assertion, the words of which we have 
thus considered? Does it mean that God did actively and by his immedi- 
ate influence on the heart or mind of Pharaoh, excite him or rouse him up 
to do evil, z.¢., to continue obstinate and rebellious against himself ? Or 
that God had excited or roused him up by the various plagues sent on him 
and his people, so that his opposition to letting the people of Israel go had 
become more active and bitter? The first of these meanings is the one 
which it is said some writers have ventured to give. /. g., Augustine, (de 
Gratia et lib. Arbit. c. 21): His et talibus testimoniis Scripturarum satis 
manifestatur operari Deum iz cordibus hominum ad inclinandas eorum volup- 
tates quocumque voluerit, sive ad bona pro sud misericordid sive ADMALA pro 
meritis eorum, &c. So Gomar, as represented by Hales: “Not unjustly 
does God condemn the sinner, for he has ordained the means of condemna- 
tion [, 6., sin]; so that he condemns no one, without having first plunged 
him into sin.”— Golden Remains, p. 485, ed. 1688. Augustine says, more 
expressly and fully than above, on the verse before us: Excitavi te ut con- 
tumaciusresisteres, non tantum permittendo, sed multa etiamtamINTUS quam 
foris operando. So Anselm, as quoted by Tholuck: Cum malus esses, pro- 
digiis quasi sopitum excitavi, ut in maktia persisteres atque deterior fieres. 
After quoting this passage, Tholuck exclaims: ‘ Is it God or the devil who 
speaks thus?” And on the other passages just quoted he says: “Can God 
speak thus to man [viz. can he say what these comments represent him as 
saying]? then woe to us! for we are mere dwarfs in the hands of an irre- 
sistible Cyclops, created and dashed in pieces at his pleasure.” And again: 
“Then have Satan and God exchanged offices. God goeth about as a 
roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour; and Satan exults that the Al- 
mighty, from whose hand none can escape, places at his disposal the victims 
of his vengeance.” He then goes on to say, that this is just what pantheism 


EXCURSUS XI. ON ROM. ΙΧ. 17. 633 


would exult‘in, viz., that pantheism which abolishes all distinction between 
good and evil.* 


* Dr. J.P. Smith, in the preface to my work as stated above (p. 628), objects to my citations 
of Augustine and others in this passage, as tending to place the authors unfairly before the eye 
ef the public, because it seems virtually to accuse them of the doctrine of fatality. But he has in 
part mistaken the object of my citations. I had no design to accuse the men in question of 
really holding the doctrine of fatality, 7. ¢., that God is the proper author of sin; but merely to 
show that writers of great talent and much celebrity had occasionally expressed themselves in a 
way that scarcely seems compatible with scriptural views. The passage from Augustine surely 
cannot be denied. It were easy to add not a few more of the same tenor; but this would be 

foreign to my purpose at present. All that can be said is, that Augustine, like every other man 
who is a warm disputant and writes a great deal, in the fervour of his zeal has expressed himself 
in a manner that comports not all with the general spirit and tenor of his writings. He was, 
beyond a doubt, the ablest and most consistent of all the ancient Fathers as a theologian. As a 
critic, however, a very high rank surely cannot be assigned him; for he was even unacquainted 
with the Hebrew language. There is no doubt that Augustine usually expresses himself as a 
sober man, on the difficult topics connected with the subject of the present Excursus ; there is as 
little doubt that m the heat of controversy “he goes for the whole.” How can such a writer, 
however pious and able, always be consistent ? 

My friend complains of omissions, in the citation of Augustine, of parts of the passage, and of 
the sequel. But surely he will call to mind, that the subject of discussion is not the general or- 
thodoxy of Augustine ; but merely whether,he had expressed himself in a certain way, in rela- 
tion to the text under consideration. The quotation fairly settles this point ; and, I must think, 
without any injustice to Augustine. He does say, that ‘God works in the hearts of men to in- 
cline them to evil as well as to good ;’ and this was all he was appealed to as saying. How good, 
great, or consistent a man he was, the ratio loci et temporis did not permit me to discuss. 

In regard to the quotation from Anselm, Dr. Smith says he has searched in vain for the ori- 

- ginal; and he appears to doubt whether it exists. 1. also have made a search of some consider- 
able extent, and have not been so successful as to find it. Yet ina folio, who will venture to say 
that it does not somewhere lie concealed? ‘Tholuck is oneof the last men to quote falsely and 
erroneously. I can hardly feel that he is mistaken as to the fact that Anselm has such a pas- 
sage. Yet I confess it seems strange to me, that Tholuck, who names it a horrible (schreckli- 
ches) passage, should not tell his readers where they might find it, so as to judge of the tenor of 
it for themselves. In my estimate of Anselm’s character, I heartily unite with my friend, and 
with the late ecclesiastical historian, Milner. 

Dr. Smith also complains of the injustice done to Gomar. He says that he has searched the 
works of Gomar in vain, to find any thing like the passage quoted. ‘The declaration of my friend 
I do not distrust. But he will call to mind, that the quotation from Gomar is expressly stated 
in my Excursus to be taken from Hales’s account of him at the Synod of Dort. Dr. S. seems to 
aim at palliating a little the injustice that some might think I had done to these writers by say- 
ing, that “ I have avowedly borrowed them from Tholuck.” As to Gomar, he says that I took 
the passage from Tholuck, he from Mosheim, and Mosheim from John Hales of Eton, ‘who 
embraced the side of Gomar’s opponents at the Synod ot Dort. Thus,” adds he, “ Mr. Stuart 
has the passage at third hand.” . 

My answer is short. I verified the quotation from Mosheim’s translation of Hales’s letters, 
having the original work of Mosheim before me. I had before read the whole of that work, and 
remembered the passage. -The original English work of Hales, ὁ, ¢., his letters to the ambassa- 
dor at the Hague, Sir D. Carleton, was not then in my possession. It now lies before me. On 
p. 435 (as I have already stated in the text), stands the passage in question. It is not misrepre- 
sented by Mosheim and Tholuck, as to substance. Yet as to the last clause of the quotation, it 
is doubtful whether it comes from Gomar, or is a conclusion drawn by Mosheim, and by Tholuck 
after him, from what is said in the first part of the quotation. From the mode of printing and 
pointing in the Golden Remains, it is impossible to tell whether the phrase, that is, as he predestin- 
ated man to death, so he predestinated him to sin, the only way to death, belongs to Gomar or to the 
comment of Hales on what Gomar had just said, viz., that, as God had decreed the end [death], 
so he did decree the means [si!.] Mosheim:’takes the doubtful words as belonging to Gomar; 
the inspection of them in the Golden Remains rather inclines me to attribute them to Hales, 
Be, this, however, as it may, they are undoubtedly a correct exposition of the sentiment conveyed 
by the declaration of Gomar. 

Every thing turns then on the credit due to John Hales. As to this, no less a personage than 
J. Pearson, the well-known, learned, and excellent bishop of that name, edited John Hales’s 
book, inasmuch as his name stands attached to the preface. His testimony concerning Hales, 
whom he intimately knew, is as follows: ‘ John Hales (some time Greek Professor of the Uni- 
versity of Oxford, long a Fellow of Eton College, and at last also a prebendary at Windsor) was 


634 EXCURSUS XI. ON ROM. Ix. 17. 


These expressions, it must be admitted, bear very hardly on such men as 
Augustine, Anselm, Calvin, Beza, P. Martyr, Parzeus, Gomar, and many 
others. Yet so much must we concede, viz., that the Scriptures not only 
teach us God’s entire abhorrence of sin, and the freedom of man in 
sinning, but they do also, in so many words, assert that “ God cannot be 
tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man; but every man is 
tempted, when he is drawn away of -his own lust and enticed,” James i. 
13,14. With this unequivocal assertion of an apostle before our eyes, 
an assertion bearing directly on the specific point of internal excitement 
to do evil, we ought not to take any position which maintains, that God 
operated DIRECTLY on the heart and mind of Pharaoh, in order to harden 
him and make him more desperate. 

God does not permit wicked men to say truly that such is the case, in 
respect to his dealings with them. ‘Thus he says to the Jews: “ Will ye 
steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense 
to Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; and,come and 
stand before me in this house...and say: We are delivered ΓΘ ΎΣ, we are 
reserved | to do all these abominations?” Jer. vii. 9, 10. Nay, the Scripture 
directly decides, that there may be a “ determinate counsel and foreknow- 
ledge of God” respecting a thing which is exceedingly sinful, and yet that 


a man, I think, of as great a sharpness, quickness, and subtility of wit, as ever this, or perhaps 
any nation bred... He became as great a master of polite, various, and universal learning, as ever 
yet conversed with books... He really was a most prodigious example of acute and piercing wit, 
of a vast and illimited knowledge, of asevere and profound judgment... I cannot esteem him less 
in any thing which belongs to a good man, than in those intellectual perfections...As a Christian, 
none was ever more acquainted with the nature of the gospel, none more studious of the know- 
ledge of it, or more curious in search...If ever any man might be allowed to judge, it was he who 
so long, so much, so advantageously considered ; and what is more, who never could be said to 
have the least worldly design in his determinations... He was most exemplary, meek, and humble, 
notwithstanding his perfections...This testimony...comes far short of him.”—Pref. to Golden 
Remains. ᾿ 

So much for the capacity of Hales to understand Gomar, and for his fidelity in reporting what 
he said. As to the fact alleged by my friend, viz., that “ Hales was on the side of Gomar’s op- 
ponents at the Synod of Dort,” it is the greatest mistake of all. He who has studied well the 
history of the Synod of Dort, cannot be ignorant of the fact that it was convoked by the influ- 
ence of King James, and with a design to support Calvinism. Sir Dadley Carleton was accord- 
ingly sent by the King to stay at the Hague, and watch over all the movements of the Synod, in 
order to see that matters were conducted so as to please his majesty. It was indecorous for 
Carleton to go directly to Dort; and so he stopped a short distance from it, and sent Hales to 
watch the motions of the Synod, and communicate them to him from day to day, For this very 
purpose had Hales been nominated by king James, as the most shrewd, learned, and able of all the 
English Calvinists. Had he been in any degree suspected of leaning to Arminianism, he could 
not possibly have received the appointment that he did. It was by attendance on the Synod, 
and witnessing the manner in which the Arminians were treated, that Hales became first cool 
towards Gomar and his party, and afterwards opposed to them on the ground of their violence 
and persecution unto blood. In subsequent life he seems to have declined still farther from the 
high Calvinistic party. But be this as it may, there is not the least ground of doubt that he was 
a high Calvinist when he went to the Synod of Dort. That his letters are a faithful picture of 
what took place there, no one who reads them with candour and attention can doubt. The in- 
ternal evidence is perfectly convincing. Nor have I ever seen their authenticity called in ques- 
tion, That Gomar, with all his abilities, whatever they were, was a high party-man, a heated 
disputant, and a bold uncompromising defender of ultra-doctrines on the subject of the divine 
decrees, no one, I think, will call in question, who reads the letters of Hales. 

After all, I hardly need to have said any thing in the way of my own vindication ; for I have 
expressly said, that the remarks of Tholuck “ bear very hardly” on the authors quoted, Yet in 
deference to the feelings of my friend, whose opinion I so highly value, and in justice to the 
general tenor and strain of the works of the authors quoted, I have moditied my own remarks 
upon their declarations. I do this, not because I suppose them not to have made such declara- 
tions ; but because I suppose them to haye said, in the heat of dispute, that which they did not 
abide by in their sober and considerate moments, 


ΝΥΝ aT 


"» 


EXCURSUS XI. ON ROM. Ix. 17. 635 


those who are agents in bringing it about may be altogether voluntary and 
guilty, Acts ii. 28, Guilty or wicked they could not be, unless they were 
voluntary agents. 

But having advanced thus far, we must go still farther in order to obtain 
satisfaction as to the point in question. ‘This can be obtained only by a 
considerateand extensive survey of the wsus doguendi in the Scriptures, with 
reference to God as the author of all things. There is a sense, in which he 
is the author of all things, yea, of all actions. He has created all things. 
Under his control, and by his direction and power, they come into exist- 
ence. None but atheists will deny this. He continues to hold them all 
_ under his control, ὦ e., he governs the universe: and in him “ we live, and 
move, and have our being.” He directs all things after the counsel of his 
own will; i. e., he so guides and controls all things, all events, ail creatures 
and their actions, as finally to accomplish his own blessed and glorious pur- 
poses, both of mercy and justice. 

The moment we admit him to be an omniscient and omnipotent God, that 
moment we admit that he must have foreseen from eternity ad/the actions 
of his creatures, all their thoughts and affections and wishes and de- 
sires. We cannot deny that, foreseeing all these with all their consequences, 
he brought them into being, and placed them (for surely it was he who or- 
dered their lot) in circumstances, where he knew they would act as he had 
foreseen they would. It is impossible to deny this, without denying the 
omniscience of God, and his immutability. 

Now the Scripture most evidently admits and inculcates all these truths. 
Such being the fact, there is plainly a sense in which all things and events 
may be ascribed to God. He joreknew them; and his creating and govern- 
ing and controlling power renders it certain that they will come to pass; 
for how could he foreknow what is uncertain? Accordingly, the Bible de- 
clares that ‘ we live and move and have our being in God.’ Nay it goes 
farther than this; however we may stumble at the expressions, or revolt at 
the sentiment. It ascribes evil, yea, moral evil, to God in some sense or 
other; an assertion which must not be hazarded without proof, and which 
shall be supported by an overwhelming mass of examples. Let the reader 
now turn to the following passages and attentively consider them; viz., 2 
Sam. xii. 11, xvi. 10; 1 Kings xxii. 22; Josh. xi. 20; Ps. ev. 25; 1 Kings 
xi. 23; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. Let him next examine the texts which declare 
that God hardened the heart of one and another; 6. g., of Pharaoh, Exod. 
vii. 13, ix. 12, x. 1. 20, 27, xi. 10, xiv. 8; Rom. ix. 18; of Sihon king of 
the Amorites, Deut. ii. 30; of the Israelites, Isai. Ixiii. 17; John xii. 40. 
Who can read such texts as these, and so many, and yet aver that the 
Scripture teaches us, that there is zo sense in which it is true that God 
hardens the hearts of men ? | 

But the great question yet remains, Does God do this in such a way, 
i. 6.7 is he so concerned i: it, and only soconcerned, that man’s freeagency 
is still left entire, and so that all the moral blame of his sins is to be attri- 
buted solely to him? This question we may answer in the affirmative. The 
Bible does indeed speak of God as hardening the hearts of men, in some 
sense or other. In what sense, is not specifically said, although it is very 
plainly implied. That he does this in the way of direct influence on the 
heart or mind, seems to be unequivocally denied in James i. 13. 14. That 
what we are allowed to attribute to him, in respect to the hardening of the 
heart, cannot be any thing which takes away the criminality and guilt of 


633 EXCURSUS XI. ON ROM. Ix. 17. 


men, nor any thing which in any measure abridges the entire freedom of 
their own actions, is clear from the fact, that the sacred writers often and 
every where ascribe the hardening of the heart to the wicked themselves. So, 
expressly, in respect to Pharaoh, Exod. viii. 15, 32, ix. 84; 1 Sam. vi. 6; 
in respect to others, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 13; Ps. xcy. 8; Proy. xxviii. 14; Job 
ix. 4; and so of hardening the neck, which for substance has the same mean- 
ing, 2 Kings xvii. 14; Jer. vii. 26, xix. 15; Prov. xxix. 1; Neh. ix. 16, 
17, 29. In other expressions the passive voice only is made use of, without 
designating any agent; e. g., Exod. vii. 22, viii. 19, ix. 7, 35, et alibi. 

With these texts may be compared Isai. vi. 10, where the prophet is bid 
to go and make the heart of the people stupid, their ears heavy, and to close 
. up their eyes. Read now the comments on this, in Matt. xiii. 15; Mark iv. 
12; John xii. 40; Acts xxviii. 26, 27. A comparison of these is replet ; 
with instruction; for in Isai. vi. 10, the prophet is represented as hardening 
the Jews, because he declares to them the divine word, and they, hearing 
and rejecting it, become more hardened. In John xii. 40, God is represent- 
ed as hardening their heart (which seemsalso to be implied in Mark iv. 12); 
while in Matt. xiii. 15 and Acts xxviii. 26, 27, the plain and necessary im- 
plication is, that the Jews hardened their own hearts. Tere then is one 
and the same case, which is represented in three different ways. (1) The 
prophet hardens the Jews. (2) God does the same thing. (3) The Jewish 
people do it themselves. Is all this true; or is one part contradictory to 
another? We may safely answer: It is a// true. The prophet is said é 
harden the hearts of the Jews, merely because he is the instrument of deli- 
vering messages to them; while they, in consequence of abusing these, be- 
come more hardened and guilty. God hardens their hearts, in that by his 
providence he sustains them in life, upholds the use of all their powers, 
causes the prophets to warn and reprove them, and places them in cireum- 
stances where they must receive these warnings and reproofs. Under this 
arrangement of his providence they become more hardened and wicked. 
In this sense, and in this only, do the Scriptures seem to affirm that he is 
concerned with the hardening of men’s hearts. 

The Jews hardened their own hearts, inasmuch as they freely and volun- 
tarily abused all the blessings and privileges which the providence and 
mercy of God had bestowed upon them, and thus became more stupid and 
corrupt. 

Surely no one will say that the prophet (Isai. vi. 10) hardens the hearts 
of the Jews, by direct and positive influence upon them. It is not neces- 
sary, then, when it is declared that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, to 
draw the conclusion that this was done by direct and posvtive influence. 
That it is not necessary, can be made clear from the following illustration 
of Scripture usage. In 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, it is said, The Lord moved (FD) 


David to go and number Israel, &c., which, under the cirenmstances then 
existing, and with the views that David had, was a great sin in the sight of 
heaven, and was punished by a signal judgment of God. Here observe, 
that ND is applied directly to Jehovah, without any intimation of a 


secondary agent or instrument; and so one might argue (as some do in re- 
gard to other expressions of the like nature in the Scriptures), that God is 
here asserted to be the direct exciting cause, which occasioned David to 
number Israel, &c. Yet in 1 Chron. xxi. 1 the very same thing is ascribed 
to Satan: And Satan moved®> David togo and number Israel, &e. Observe 


 EXCURSUS XI. ON ROM. IX. 17. 637 


that the very same verb is employed in the second case, as in the first. 
Now as Satan is the ¢empter of men to sin, and as “ God ¢empted no man,” 
we must say, Here is aclear case, in which that is ascribed to God, which 
he permits or suffers to be brought about under his superintendence or 
government of the universe, by agents of an inferior character. This 
seems, at least, to be a clear case; and it is one which has a very import- 
ant bearing on the subject before us. 

Itis true that God roused up Pharaoh, so that he was the occasion of the 
divine power and glory being displayed in all the land of Egypt. But was 
this done by direct and immediate operation in hardening his heart, or was 
it through the signs and wonders, which the power and providence of God 
performed before the eyes and in the country of this contumacious monarch? 
In the latter way, we may safely answer, inasmuch as Pharaoh and others 
are said, in the Scriptures, to harden their own hearts. There was another 
agency here, then, besides that of Jehovah; just as in the case stated above. 
God in his providence did send Moses and Aaron with a commission to 
make demands on the king of Egypt in behalf of the oppressed Hebrews; 
he sent plagues upon Egypt by his miraculous power; and all these things 
under arrangements of his providence being brought to act upon Pharaoh, 
he became worse and worse. ‘The Lord hardened his heart, because the 
Lord was the author of commands and messages and miracles, which were 
the occasion of Pharaoh’s hardening his own heart. Injust such a way, Paul 
says that our sinful passions are by the law, τὰ rabjwara τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τὰ 
διὰ τοῦ νόμου, Rom. vii. 5, which he afterwards explains by saying, ἡ γὰρ 
ἁμαρτία ἀφορμὴν λαβοῦσω, x. τ. λ., Rom. vii. 11. 

That God was the author of the commands and messages delivered by 
Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh, is clear ; that he was the author of the judg- 
ments inflicted on the land of Egypt is clear; that he knew what effect these 
would produce on the heart of Pharaoh, is equally certain; and that he de- 
signed to turn all this into ultimate good, and to glorify himself, the Bible 
often asserts or implies, There is no difficulty then in saying, with refer- 
ence to all this, and in the sense stated above, that God hardened Pharaoh’s 
heart, or that he roused him up, viz. by his messages and the miracles which 
he wrought. It is a clear case, that the active and bitter indignation and 
contumacy of Pharaoh was greatly increased or excited by these doings of 
Divine Providence; and therefore the sentiment of our text remains true; 
while, at the same time, God is not the author of Pharaoh’s sin (in the com- 
mon sense of this expression), any more than he is the author of our sin, 
because he has given us powers and faculties by which we may sin, and, 
with full knowledge that we should sin, has placed usin a world where we 
are of course surrounded by temptations and enticements to sin. After all 
this, we are free agents, we sin voluntarily, and we are therefore account- 
able for it; all which was equally true of Pharaoh. 

To all that has now been said to illustrate and vindicate the true sense of 
ἐξήγειρα, it may be added, that the conclusion drawn by the apostle in ver. 
18, clearly implies that he gave such a sense to verses 16, 17, as has been 
given above: “ Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he 
will, he hardeneth,” Now if ἐξήγειρα does not imply some kind of agency, 
something done on the part of God which has a connection with the hard- 
ening of Pharaoh’s heart, how can the apostle deduce the conclusion in ver. 
18 from the assertion in verses 16, 17? This consideration alone seems 


638 EXCURSUS XI. ON ROM. Ix, 17. 


fully and finally to decide the point, in regard to the exegesis put upon 
ἐξήγειρα by ‘Tholuck, who follows the διετηρήϑης Of the Seventy, and con- 
strues it of preserving Pharaoh, 7. e., upholding him in life during the con- 
tinuance of the plagues in Egypt. Six of these had already been inflicted, 
when the words in ver. 17 were spoken. Tholuck says that Pharaoh might 
have easily been taken off by these plagues, and therefore ἐξήγειρα relates, 
as he maintains, to Pharaoh’s having been preserved in life. And in the 
same way many others have construed the word ἐξήγειρα. But this will 
hardly satisfy the demands of critical exegesis. The six plagues already 
inflicted were, the turning of the waters of the Nile into blood, Exod. vii. 
14, seq.; the sending of the frogs, Exod. viii, 1, seq.; of the lice, Exod. viii. 
16, seq.; of the flies, Exod. viii. 20, seq.; the murrain of beasts, Exod. ix.1, 
seq.; and the plague of biles and blains, Exod. ix. 8, seq. Now as all these 
plagues were. merely temporary, and as we have no intimation in the sacred 
records that they occasioned the loss of human life among the Egyptians, so 
there seems to be no special reason for putting this sense on ἢ ΤΙ ΜΠ, viz. 
I have preserved thee, or kept thee alive. 

And then, if this be adopted, how does the conclusion of the apostle in 
ver. 18 foilow, viz. ὅν δὲ ϑέλει σκληρύνει ἢ Does preserving in life, or making 
one to keep his standing, necessarily import a τὸ oxAngive OF σχλήρωμαῦ 
I am altogether unable to see how Paul could deduce such a conclusion 
from such premises. 

I must therefore accede to what seems to be the plain and evident mean- 
ing of ἐξήγειρα, Viz., that God in his providence did so direct things, viz., 
the warnings to Pharaoh, the commands addressed to him, and the signs 
and wonders in his land, that he was excited to more vehement resistance 
and contumely, which ended in his signal overthrow and destruction. In 
all this Pharaoh was entirely voluntary and free. The case differs not, in 
principle, from what happens every day. As has been before remarked, 
God creates men: he endows them with powers and faculties which enable 
them to sin; and places them in a world surrounded by temptation; and 
all this, knowing certainly that they will sin. Every one must agree to this. 
But are not men free agents still? Do they not sin voluntarily? Does not 
the blame of this attach entirely to themselves? Can any part of it be justly 
charged upon God? Surely not; and if not, then there is a sense in which 
he may say, that he roused up Pharaoh, in order that he might show forth his 
power and gloryin all theearth; and this without making himself the proper 
author of sin. In ove sense, God does all that takes place under his pro- 
vidence and government of the world; for he preserves all creatures and 
all worlds, and gives them all their powers, faculties, and opportunities of 
action. In another sense, God is mot the author of sin ; “ God tempteth no 
man.” Man is the proper author of his own sin; “every man is tempted 
when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed to sin.” In one sense 
God hath made all things for himself, yea, “ the wicked for the day of evil,” 
Proy. xvi. 4, and in the like sense he roused up Pharaoh, So far as he is 
concerned with all this, it is in a way that is perfectly consistent with the 
freedom of men in action; and all his designs are to bring good out of evil, 
and thus to promote the glory of his own name; as is intimated in the 
verse before us. , 

All the difficulty which is involved in these declarations in their full 
extent, is involved in the principle (which even Theism admits), that God is 


7 


EXCURSUS XII. ON ROM, ΧΙ. ὃ. 639 


omniscient, omnipotent, and immutable. 'The Deist has, in reality, the very 
same difficulties to cope with here, so far as the free agency and the sinful- 
ness of men are concerned, as the evangelical Christian. The modus of the 
whole is our ignorance of the manner in which free agency and entire de- 
pendence, foreknowledge and voluntary action, consist together and are 
harmonized. But as fact only is known to us, viz., the fact that they do 
coexist; and as the manner of their coexistence or consistency is beyond the 
boundaries of human knowledge; so I do not see how those, who are 
stumbled at the subject under consideration, can ever satisfy themselves, so 
long as they insist on first knowing the manner of the consistency, before 


“they admit the fact. 


In the apostle’s time, the very same objection was made to his doctrine, 
which has been made ever since, and is still every day repeated So the 
verses in the sequel plainly show us, They show, moreover, that the 
apostle was understood in the same way by objectors, as his words at first 
view would seem to mean; for if this were not so, what ground was there 
for the objection which is raised? 

The difficulty of this subject, the manner in which it has so often been 
misunderstood and abused, and a wish to contribute (if possible) something 
to remove some of its perplexities from the minds of readers who may 
peruse these pages, are my apology for dwelling so long uponit. That 
there are difficulties still which remain unexplained, and which ever must 
remain so while ‘ we know in part,’ z. e., while we continue in the present 
world, I do not feel disposed at all to deny. But this is confessedly the 
case in regard to a multitude of other things, which all admit without 
hesitation; and admit them, too, even while the modus of them remains 
utterly inexplicable. | 


EXCURSUS XII. 
On the various designations in Rom. xii. 8 (p. 505). 


I HAVE, in the commentary, given the reader the wswal exegesis of the pas- 
sage in question, Υ]Ζ., ὁ μεταδιδοὺς, ἐν ἁπλότητι" ὁ προϊστάμενος, ἐν σπουδῇ" ὁ 


᾿ ἐλεῶν, ἐν ἱλαρότητι, But an attentive and repeated examination of it has 


raised many doubts in my mind whether there is not a radical mistake at 
the foundation of this wholeinterpretation. I refer not now to the verbal 
criticisms merely; which, it is obvious, are in general well founded and 
correct. But 1 refer to the assumption, in this case, that ὁ weradidods, ὁ 
προϊστάμενος, and ὁ ἐλεῶν designate officers or offices in the church; I mean 
officers in the usual and proper sense of the word, viz., men set apart by the 
special designation and appointment of the church, for the performance of 
some peculiar and appropriate duties. I have a predominant persuasion, 
that these words here designate duties which individuals merely as such 
were to perform, and to whom the church looked for such performance be- 
cause they had ability or opportunity to perform them, or (if it shall be 
thought more probable) who were specially desired by the church to perform 


640 EXCURSUS XII. ON ROM. Xii. 8. 


them. In the last case it might be true, for example, that to an individual 
in the church who was wealthy, the church looked in a peculiar manner 
with expectation that he would aid the poor; or (to adduce another ex- 
ample) it might happen that some individual had leisure, and also particular 
qualifications for visiting the sick, consoling mourners, counselling the per- 
plexed, relieving the distressed by various personal attentions, &c., and the 
church looked to him as a ὁ ἐλεῶν, or they made a special request of him 
that he would attend to such duties. , All this might be, nay, it is all very 
natural and probable; while, at the same time, this would not prove that 
there were regularly instituted offices in the church, designated by ὁ μετα- 
διδούς, ὁ προϊστάμενος, and. ὁ ἐλεῶν. 

These hints give the general views which I feel compelled to entertain 
of the words under examination. But as the whole subject has an impor- 
tant bearing on the polity of the Christian church, I feel obliged to assign 
reasons for such an opinion. - 

(1) It is obvious that the apostle does not here confine himself to extra- 
ordinary and miraculous gifts only, although he includes them. The 
προφήτης was one who spoke under the influence of inspiration; but ὁ 
διδάσκων and ὁ παρακαλῶν might or might not be inspired; for the office 
itself was of a permanent or general nature, and not limited to special cir- 
cumstances. So the διάκονος might or might not be an inspired man; for 
Stephen (Acts vi. vii.) was ‘full of the Holy Ghost,” while we have no 
particular reason to believe that all of his brethren in office were endowed 
with the same gift. ‘The same is true of ὁ μεταδιδούς, ὁ προϊστάμενος, and ὁ 
ἐλεῶν: for the respective individuals who performed the duties designated 
by these words, might, at times, enjoy special divine assistance and direc- 
tion. But this belongs not essentially to the nature of the duties them- 
selves, which may in general be performed without miraculous interposi- 
tion. 

(2) It is equally obvious that the apostle, in the whole extent of his ex- 
hortation here, includes both public and private, official and unofficial | 
duties. A bare inspection of verses, 6—21 sets this question at rest. He 
means to say, that inasmuch as all Christians are members of one and the 
same body, all their gifts and talents, of whatever kind or nature, whether 
adapted to the performance of public or private duties, whether they are 
aided by the special influence of the Spirit or otherwise—ad/ were to be 
employed in the most efficient and profitable manner. Such is the evident 
tenor of his whole discourse. Who, for example, would seek in verses 9, 
10. seq., for directions only to men in official stations? There is no reason- 
able question, therefore, respecting the general principle which I have here 
laid down, in regard to the whole paragraph which contains the apostle’s 
exhortation. »But where does he dismiss the address to the officers of the 
church as such, and begin with individuals or laymen? This is the very 
gist of the question; and in order to throw some light on this, I observe, ᾿ 

(3) That the very construction and natural order of verses 6—8 favour 
the supposition, that the last three classes of men named are private, not 
official persons. 

In respect to the natural order of the passage, it would seem to be an 
obvious dictate of propriety, that the apostle should begin first with the 
officers of the church; and this he has plainly done; for we have προφήτης, 


διάκονος, διδάσκαλος, ὁ παρακαλῶν, before he proceeds tothe rest. Now if, 


EXCURSUS XII. ON ROM. X11. 8. 641 


after παρακαλῶν, he proceeds to wnofficial men (as I suppose), then it would 
be perfectly natural to select from among these, those who are particularly 
distinguished in the church for their usefulness; and so he seems to have 
done. The reader will not fail to notice, moreover, that here (before 
ὃ μεταδιδούς) the construction is changed by the apostle, εἴτε being omitted 
‘as if purposely to designate a change in classification. 

(4) Itis difficult, if not impossible tomake out officzal distinctions through 
the whole of verses 6-—8. How does ὁ μεταδιδούς, as an officer of the church, 
differ from ὁ διάκονος; And again; how does ὁ ἐλεῶν differ from both, or 
from either? A question which none of the commentators have answered 

“with any good degree of satisfaction. Indeed most of them pass the diffi- 
culty over with entire silence; which is at least the most easy, if not the 
most instructive, method of commentary. Here then according to them, 
are two supplementary offices to that of διάκονος; the main and originally 
the only duty of which was, ἐο take care of the poor. 

But further, who is ὁ σροϊστάμενοςῦ He who presides over the church? If 
so, how can he be placed the sixth in rank here, and the seventh in 1 Cor. xii. 
28? (See χυβερνήσεις there.) Then again, why should ὁ προϊστάμενος not have 
a place among the éeachers, instead of being placed where it has, on the right 
and left hand, an office of mere charity? Does the presiding officer of the 
whole church ever rank in this way, in times either ancient or modern? I 
know of no such example. 

I am aware, indeed, that the apostle has not strictly followed the order of 
office here, as to dignity or rank, inasmuch as he has mentioned the deacon 
before the teacher or exhorter. But there is an apparent reason for this. In 
speaking of the official classes of the Romish church, the highest and lowest 
office, viz. that of prophet and deacon, i.e., the two extremes of office, 
occurred first: which is a very natural method of thought. These the apostle 
wrote down as they occurred. He then supplied the intermediate offices, 
viz., that of teacher and exhorter, τ, e., the proper doctrinal instructor, 
whether in public or private, and exhorter, or practical and persuasive 
preacher. This will account very naturally for the order of officers here. But 
in 1 Cor. xii. 28, the apostle ex professo recounts the natural order servatim; 
which he makes to be, 1. Apostles; 2. Prophets; 3. Teachers; 4. Such as 
possessed miraculous powers in general (δυνὰμεις); 5. Such as possesse’ 
the gift of healing the sick; 6. Avriin pes; 7. Κυβερνήσεις; 8. Those who 
spoke various languages; 9. Interpreters (comp. ver. 30). 

Here, then the ὁ μεταδιδούς, ὁ προϊστάμενος, and ὁ ἐλεῶν of our text, are 
omitted (unless indeed the ὁ προϊστάμενος is found in the κυβερνήσεις, of whicl. 
more hereafter), and dyr/An erg comes in for ὁ διάκονος. So Bretschneider 
on ἀντίληψις: “haud dubiead munusdiaconorum et diaconissarum respicitur, 
ut etiam patres eccles. putérunt.” That this last declaration is correct, one 
may 866 by consulting Suicer’s Thesaurus, sub. voc. ἀντίληψις. Vitringa 
thinks that ἀντίληψις means, the interpreters of foreign languages (comp. 
1 Cor. xii. 30, διερμενεύουσι); de Vet. Synag. 11.31, p.509. But the other 
exegesis is most natural; for ἀντήληψις means, help, assistance, care; and 
here the abstract (as grammarians say) being used for the conereée, the 
sense is curatores, i. e., διάκονοι. 

It is obvious, now, that in this noted passage in 1 Cor. xii, 28, ὁ μεταδι- 

28 


642 EXCURSUS XII. ON ROM: XII. 8. 


δοὺς and ὁ ἐλεῶν are omitted; and this gives very strong reason to suspect 
that these were not properly offices in the church. 

But how is it with ὁ προϊστάμενος "Ὁ Is he not found in the χυβερνήσεις 
of 1 Cor. xii. 28? This looks probable at first view; but let us examin 
a little more thoroughly. 

First, remark, that the word προΐστημι and its derivates are by no means 
confined to designate the idea of presiding over persons. It sometimes 
conveys the idea of being placed over any thing, or any kind of business, in 
order to take care of it, see that it is done, &c.; ὃ, e., the undertaker in any 
thing, the protector or curator of any person or thing, the Greeks call 
ὁ προϊστάμενος, ὁ προεστώς, ὁ προϊστάτης, 1.q.,patron, helper. Accordingly the 
word occurs in the sense of arding, assisting, &c., in Rom. xvi. 2, where 
the brethren of the Roman church are charged by the apostle to aid, in any 
manner she may need, Phebe, who had been a προστάτις Of many Christians, 
t. €., a helper, a curator, one who had aided them by her personal attention 
and by her charity. The grammarian Varinus explains προστασία by βοήϑεια. 
In the letter of Athanasius ad Solitarios, when speaking of the disposition 
of Zenobia to Paul of Samosata, he says: προέστη τοῦ Σαμοσάτεως, she 
aided him of Samosata.* So Theophylact, commenting on Rom. xii. 8, 
says: Ilgoioraosas ἐστι τὸ Bonstety, καὶ διά ῥήματων καὶ διὰ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ 
τῷ βοηϑείας δεομένῳ, 1 €., xgoteraodas means TO AID, both by words and oy 
personal services, him who is needy. 

That such a meaning then may be given to ὁ προϊστάμενος in Rom. xii. 8, 
seems clear. The wsus loguendi allows it. What then does the context 
demand? Let us see what precedes, and what follows. 

What precedes is, ὁ μεταδιδοὺς, ἐν ἁπλότητι ; Which I now render, det hin 
who imparts [charity 1, do it with Aberality. So, beyond all doubt, the words 
may be rendered. That ἁπλότης may mean liberality, one may see in 2 Cor. 
viii. 2, ix. 11, 13; Jamesi. 5. So Xenophon: ἀπλούστατον δέ μοι boxes 
εἶναι, Xe τ. A., ἐξ seems to me to be the part of a most liberal man, &c.,Cyrop. 
VIII. p. 155. So Josephus, speaking of Araunah’s liberal offer to David 
(2 Sam. xxiv. 19—24), says: David highly esteemed his ἁσλοσήτα, liberality, 
ὅς. Antiq. VII.10. So in Test. XII. Patriarch, p. 624: 632d συνεργεῖ 
τῇ ἁσλότητί μου, God helped my liberal disposition. See other examples in 
Kypke in loc. <As to ὁ μεταδιδούς, which is commonly applied to one who 
distributes charity, and so made for substance synonymous with διάκονος, it 
is very doubtful, to say the least, whether the word will bear this construe- 
tion. Bretschneider has indeed given it such a meaning (as others before 
him have often done); but as Vitringa long ago observed (De Vet. Synag. 
Il. 3, p. 501), ‘‘ the proper Greek word for distribute is δια δίδωμι; as one 
may see in John vi, 11; Luke xviii. 22 (also in xi. 22, it has the like 
sense), Acts iv. 35. The like sense this verb has in the classics. But 
μεταδίδωμι properly means to impart among others what belongs to one’s 
self, to give of one’s own to others ; which is, or at any rate may be, a very 
different thing from distributing the alms of the church. 

If these words be rightly explained, we have in them a command of the 
apostle, that those who are able μεγαδιδέναι, to give in charity, should do this 


- * Reiche has quoted this in the sense of ‘ he presided over Samosatat’ 


EXCURSUS XII. ON ROM. XII. 8. 643 


in a liberal manner. That all this is congruous and appropriate, I pre-, 
sume no one will venture to deny. 

We have seen what precedes ὁ προϊστάμενος. Let us now see what follows 
it. This is ὁ ἐλεῶν, ἐν ἱλαρότητι, let him who performs deeds of mercy, do tt 
cheerfully, 2. 6., let-him. go about his task with a willing mind voluntarily, 
not grudgingly and with a forbidding demeanour. The duty of é ἐλεῶν may 
differ from that of ὁ μεταδιδούς, in this respect, viz., that the former con- 
sisted in personal cares and services bestowed upon the sick and unfortu- 
nate; while the latter consisted in donations of money, food, &c. These 
latter duties devolved especially on the rich; the former could be performed 
‘by all classes.of Christians. ; 

Between these two classes of benefactors, then, the apostle places ὃ 
προϊστάμενος. If these classes, now, are not officers of the church, it would 
seem probable that ὁ προϊστάμενος does not stand here for one. That 6 
ἐλεῶν cannot be made to mean an officer of the church, the silence of most 
commentators concerning it would seem pretty strongly to indicate, Ac- 
cordingly Vitringa does not hesitate to say : Quicquid enim adverse opin- 
ionis auctores statuant, fier? non potest, ut per τὸν ἐλεοῦντα describantur 
aliqui ecclesix officiari [ officers. ] 

It does seem most probable, therefore, that 6 προϊστάμενος is of the like 
tenor with ἡ προστάτις in Rom. xvi. 2, which there means, one who receives 
and entertains strangers, t. e., a helper of Christian brethren coming from 
abroad; for such a helper (προστάτις) was Phebe. And this seems the more 
probable, inasmuch as the duty of hospitality, so often and so urgently 
insisied on by the apostles, has no specific mention among the special char- 
ities here unless it be included in this word; although it is touched on 
as it respects the church in general, in ver. 13. But a comparison with 
Rom. xvi. 2, as I must think, renders the sense now given to ὁ προϊστάμενος 
quite probable. 

But Tholuck and others appeal to κυβερνήσεις in 1 Cor. xii. 28, and say, 
that as χυβερνήσεις means there a special gift or office bestowed by the influ- 
ence of the Spirit, soé προϊστάμενος must be considered as corresponding with 
it, But what is χυβέρνησις ἢ A question difficult to be answered, inasmuch 
as this word in 1 Cor. xii. 28 isa draZAeyiuevove In classic Greek it means 
guidance, direction, steering ; and is especially (as also the verb κυβερνάω) 
applied to designate the steering or guiding of a ship by the pilot. Hence 
many critics understand it here (1 Cor. xii. 28) as designating the office of 
a ruler in the church. But how can such an office be placed the seventh 
in rank (for the apostle here seems to make an enumeration according to the 
order of precedence), and have but one or two offices reckoned below it? 
This seems to be exceedingly incongruous. The governor and guide of a 
Christian church would seem, in the order of nature, to stand at its head. 

I ask, in the next place, how it should happen that χυβερνήσεις stands here 
in such a position, having in order before it ἀντιλήψεις, opitulatores, cura- 
tores (i. q. διάκονοι), and after it γένη γλωσσῶν Why does it not stand next 
before or after προφήτας or διδασκάλους, Where we should almost of necessity 
expect to find it, if it mean presidents or governors of the church? 

Moved by such difficulties, I feel constrained to seek another than a clas- 
sical meaning for χυβερνήσεις. But asin the New Testament the word is not 


6044 EXCURSUS XII. ON ROM. ΧΙΙ. 8. 


elsewhere to be found, we must resort to the Septuagint : and here the word 
is uniformly employed as the rendering of the Hebrew nioann, skilful dex- 
terity, wise foresight, power of prudent or skilful management. In this very 
sense χυβέρνησις is plainly employed in Prov. i. 5, xi. 14, xxiv. 6. μετὰ κυβ. 
ἐρνήσεως γίνεται πόλεμος ; and these are all the instances in which the word 
occurs in the Septuagint. In accordance with this meaning is the Lex, 
Cyrilli; κυβέρνησις, φρόνησις. So the Glosse inedite in Proy. Salom.: κυβέρ- 
νῆσις, ἐπιστήμη τῶν πραττομένων. So also Hesychius : κυβερνήσεις, πρόνοετικαὶ 
ἐπιστῆμαι καὶ φρονήσεις, considerate knowledge and understanding. 

In view of all this, we may now venture to translate χυβερνήσεις, skelfue 
discernment or insight. But in what respect? To answer this, we must let 
the apostle explain himself. Let us go back, then, to 1 Cor. xii. 8—10, and 
there we shall find nearly if not quite the same reckoning of spiritual gifts 
as in verses 28—30. But there, before γένη γλωσσῶν, stands διακρίσεις τῶν 
πνευμάτων: Which does not at all appear in verses 28—30, unless it be desig- 
nated by κυβερνήσεις. That it should not in fact be included in this latter 
passage, distinguished as such a gift must be, and important as it was in the 
then state of the church, would be singular. Now as in 1 Cor. xii. 28, γένη 
γλωσσῶν Comes immediately after κυβερνήσεις, and inver. 10immediately after 
διωκρίσεις πνευμάτων, 80 it is natural to conclude, that the apostle means to 
designate the same thing by κυβερνήσεις as he does by διακρίσεις πνευμάτων. 
For as peculiar skill and insighé would be appropriate and necessary to the 
discerning of spirits, so the qualifications for such a duty may be used to de- 
signate the persons who are to perform it. Philology allows this; but above 
all, the order, concinnity, and consistency of the apostle’s discourse here, 
seem to render it necessary, or at least quite probable. This being con- 
ceded, it would follow that no argument from χυβερνήσεις can be adduced 
in order to show that ὁ προϊστάμενος in Rom. xii. 8 means a ruler in the 
Christian church. 

I am the more satisfied with this view of the subject, as I find it was fully 
embraced by Lightfoot and Vitringa, “‘quos [in re critica | facile principes 
nominarem.” See Vitringa, De Vet. Synag. IL. 3. p. 507 seq. 

It remains only that I notice one objection more to the meaning which I 
have assigned to ὁ προϊστάμενος. This is, that in 1 Thess. v. 12 and 1 Tim. 
iii. 4, 12, it means governors, overseers of the church; and consequently 
that is the most probable meaning in Rom. xii. 8. 

On this allegation I must be very brief, as I have already put the patience 
of the reader to a trial. In1 Thess. v. 12 the apostle says to the church: 
‘ Affectionately regard σούς κοπιῶντας ἐν bur, καὶ προϊσταμένους ὑμῶν ἐν κυρίῳ 
χαὶ νουϑετοῦντας ὑμᾶς. The question is, whether he means here different 
classes of officers, or one and the same class, in the exercise of divers gifts. 
I know of no way in which this question can be definitely and certainly de- 
cided. The insertion of the article before χοσιῶντας (the first participial noun 
in the series), and the omission of it before the other like nouns προϊσταμένους 
and γουϑετοῦντας Will not prove, as has sometimes been assumed, that all be- 
long to one class; nor will it prove the contrary; for (1) the article is 
usually omitted, even when the meaning of the nouns employed is plainly 
diverse, provided they are of the same gender and case; δ. 93.» Mark. xv. 1, 


EXCURSUS XII. ON ROM. XII. 8. 645 


μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ γραμματέων (the latter without ray); and so Col. ii, 
8, 19; 2 Thess. iii. 2; Rom. i. 20; Phil. ii. 17, et seepe alibi; see N. Test. 
Gramm. ὃ 89.9. (2) The article is often cxserted, where each noun indi- 
cates a separate subject; 6. 5.0 Mark ii. 16, of γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ φαρισαῖοι ; 
so Luke viii. 24, xi. 39; 1 Thess. iii, 11; Phil. iii. 10, et alibi saepe; comp. 
ut sup. Of course, as usage is both ways, the omission of the article here 
can prove nothing. Nor, 

(2) Will the context enable us to decide the point under consideration ; 
as there seems to be nothing in it which has a direct bearing on this point. 
We are left, therefore, to the simple nature of the case. What can be 
gathered from this? I answer, (a) That τοὺς κοπτῶντας is evidently a generce, 
not a specific term, and may indicate any kind of labour performed in be- 
half of the church. (Ὁ) The words σροΐστα μένους and γουϑετοῦντας appear to 
be specific here, τ, 6.; to designate particular (and probably different) classes 
of persons. The most probable interpretation, then, is, that προϊσταμένους 
and γουϑετοῦντας designate the specific classes, comprehended under the genus 
nxomiavracg. This being admitted (and certainly no one will say this is an 
improbable exegesis), it would seem altogether probable, that προϊσταμένους 
here has the like sense as in Rom. xii. 8, viz., those who applied themselves 
to the external temporal business or concerns of the church, while youSeroiy- 
σας designates all the various kinds of teachers. The exhortation of the 
apostle, then, is to regard with kindly feelings those who laboured in any 
respect, whether temporal or spiritual, for the good of the church. This 
determines nothing, therefore, against our interpretation of ὁ προϊστάμενος in 
Rom. xii. 8. 

From what has now been said, it is easy to explain 1 Tim. v. 17, “ Let the 
elders χαλῶς προεστῶτες, managing well | the concerns of the church], be ac- 
counted worthy of double honour [ἢ. e., of ample maintenance], specially 
those who labour in word and doctrine.” 'There were then two kinds of 
elders, or (to speak more accurately) there were two departments in which 
the πρεσβύτεροι might labour; they might be προεστῶτες, 1. 6.» standing over, 
taking care of, serving the temporal concerns and business, &c., of the church; 
or they might be specially devoted to preaching and teaching, λόγῳ xas 
διδασκαλίο: or perhaps this latter means, that they might perform the duties 
of a προεστώς, and also teach and preach in addition to this. That the gov- 
ernment of the church, in the ordinary sense of presiding over and making 
rules for thechurch, is not here meant, at least that it isnot necessarily meant, 
seems to me quite plain, from comparing προΐστημι and its derivates in other 
places. . g., in this same epistle, iii. 18, deacons are spoken of who 
τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων, Manage ther own children and 
households well, i. e., take good care of them; for so ver. 13 explains it 
οἱ γὰρ καλῶς διακονὴσαντες---καλῶς προϊστάμενο. 1 cannot refrain from 
adding, that this last passage throws great light on what has been before 
said about ὁ προϊστόύμενος, and serves very much to confirm it, 

So, then, σροϊστάμενοι and προεστῶτες May mean the performers of any 
service or services which pertain to the external welfare and management 
of the church. That the πρεσβύτεροι sometimes did such services, is clear 
from 1 Tim. v.17. But that others might perform them, is equally clear 
from Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cer. xii. 28; Rom. xvi. 2, &c. 


646 EXCURSUS XII. ON ROM. XII. 8. 


We can now account for it that the apostle says, in Rom. xii.'8, ‘Let 
ὁ προϊστάμενος do his duty ἐν σπουδῇ, with diligence, τ, e., with active 
watchful attention and effort.’ But how ἐν σπουδῇ can be applicable to 
ruling, in the common sense of this word, has been a difficulty which has 
perplexed not a few, who have undertaken to expound this passage. 
We migat exhort a ruler to perform the duties of his office with zmpar- 
tiahty, with a due regard to justice and equity, &c.; but to exhort him to 
govern ἐν σπουδῇ, seems hardly congruous. 

On the whole, I am brought by a kind of philological necessity to the 
conclusion, that church officers, in the appropriate sense of this word, are not 
designated by ὁ μεταδιδούς, ὁ προϊστάμενος, and ὁ ἐλεῶν ἴῃ Rom. xii. 8, but 
that the apostle refers to individuals in the church, conspicuous for their 
attention to the duties respectively indicated by these words; which 
duties were, the giving of money or sustenance, the management of the 
external temporal affairs and business and interests of the church, and the 
succouring of the sick and unfortunate by personal attention and effort. 


THE 


EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


Introduction and Salutation. 

1. Paut, a servant of Jesus Christ, a chosen apostle, set apart for 

2 the gospel of God, | which he formerly declared by his prophets: 

3 in the holy Scriptures, | concerning his Son (born of the seed of 

4 David in respect to the flesh, | the decreed Son of God with 

power in respect to the spizit of holiness after his resurrection 

5 from the dead), Jesus Christ our Lord, | (by whom we have re- 

ceived grace and apostleship, in order to promote the obedience 

of faith among all nations, for his name’s sake, | among whom are 

7 ye also called of Jesus Christ,) | to all who are at Rome, beloved 

of God, chosen sats; grace be unto you, and peace from God 
our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 

8 First, I thank my God, through Jesus Christ, on account of. 

9 you all, that your faith is spoken of in all the world. For God 
is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his. 

10 Son, how unceasingly I make remembrance of you, | always 
asking in my prayers, that if possible, at some time before long, 
I may (God willing) make a prosperous journey and come to 

11 you. For I am desirous to see you, in order to bestow on you 

12 some spiritual favour, so that you may be confirmed. This also 
[I desire], to be comforted anbel you by the mutual faith both 
of you and me. 

13. Moreover, I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that I 
have. often purposed to come unto you (but have been hindered 
until now), that I might have some fruit among you, as also. 

14 among other Gentiles. Iam a debtor both to Greeks and Bar- 

15 barians, both to the learned and the unlearned: such being the 
case, I am ready, according to my ahilitys to eacoek the gospel 
even to you who are at Rome. 


te: 


648 ROMANS I. 16—32. 


Subjects of consideration proposed. 
16 For Iam not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, since it is the 
power of God for salvation to every one that believeth; to the 
17 Jew first, and then to the Greek. For by it the justification 
which is of God is revealed, [justification] by faith for the faith- 
18 ful; as it is written: “ The just shall live by faith.” For the 
wrath of God from heaven is revealed against all ποροάμειθδο 
and unrighteousness of men, 


Universal depravity and guilt of the Gentiles. 
19 Who wickedly hinder the truth; | because that which might be 
known of God, is manifest in them, inasmuch as God hath mani- 
20 fested it to them; | (for the invisible things of him, since the 
creation of the world, are clearly seen by the things which are 
made, even his eternal power and Godhead); so that they are 
21 without excuse; because, when they knew God, they glorified 
him not as God, neither were thankful, but became foolish in 
their imaginations, and their inconsiderate mind was darkened. 
Ὁ) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, | and ex- 
changed the glory of the immortal God for an image like to 
mortal man, and fowls, and four-footed beasts, and reptiles. 
24 Wherefore God even gave them up, in the lusts of their hearts, 
to uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves; 
2 who exchanged the true God for a false one, and worshipped 
and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed 
26 for ever, Amen! On account of this, God gave them up to base 
passions ; for their women changed their natural use into that 
27 which is against nature. And in like manner also the males, 
leaving the natural use of the female, burned in their lust toward 
each stiakin males with males doing that which is shameful, and 
receiving in themselves the reward of their error which is due. 
28 And inasmuch as they did not like to retain God in their know- 
ledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things 
29 which are base; being filled with all iniquity, uncleanness, 
malice, covetousness, mischief; full of envy, murder, strife, 
30 deceit, malevolence; | backbiters, open slanderers, haters of God, 
railers, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to 
31 parents, | inconsiderate, covenant-breakers, destitute of natural 
32 affection, implacable, unmerciful: who, knowing the ordinance 
of God that they who do such things are worthy of death, not 
_only do the same things, but even bestow commendation on those 
who do them, 


ROMANS 11. 1—22, 649 


i, The Jews equally guilty with the Gentiles. 

il. THEREFORE thou art without excuse, O man, whoever thou 
art that judgest; for while thou art passing sentence upon an- 
other, thou condemnest thyself, since thou who judgest doest 

2 the same things. For we know that the judgment of God is 
3 according to truth, against those who do such things. Dost thou _ 
think, then, O man, who condemnest those that do such things, 

and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 
4 Or dost thou despise his abounding goodness and forbearance 
and long-suffering, not acknowledging that the goodness of God 
5 leadeth thee to repentance? According to thy hard and impe- 
nitent heart, however, thou art treasuring up for thyself wrath in 
the day of wrath, when the righteous judgment of God shall be 
6 revealed; who will render to every man according to his works; 
7 to those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory 
8 and honour and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are 
contentious, and disobey the truth and obey unrighteousness, 
9 indignaticn and wrath. , Affliction and distress [shall be} upon 
every soul of man that doeth evil, first of the Jew and then of 

10 the Greek; but glory and honour and peace {shall be} to every 

11 one who doeth good, first to the Jew and then to the Greek; (for 

12 with God there is no respect of persons; since so many as have 
sinned without law shall perish without law, and so many as 

13 have sinned under the law shall be condemned by the law; for 
not hearers of the law are just with God, but the doers of the 

14 law will be justified ; for when the Gentiles who have no law, do 
in a natural state such things as the law requireth, these, being 

15 destitute of the law, are a law to themselves; who shew that the 
work which the law requireth, is written upon their hearts, their 
consciences bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately ac- 

16 cusing or excusing); in the day when God shall judge the secret 
things of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. 

17 Ifnowthou art surnamed Jew, and dost lean upon the law, 

18 and make thy boast of God; | and art acquainted with [his] will, 
and canst distinguish things which differ, being instructed by the 

19 law; thou art confident also of being thyself ‘a guide to the blind, 

20 a light to those who are in darkness, | an instructor of the igno- 
rant, a teacher of little children, one having the representation of 
true knowledge in the law; dost thou then who teachest another, 

21 not instruct thyself? Dost thou who preachest against stealing, 

22 thyself steal? Dost thou who forbiddest to commit adultery, 


650 ROMANS II. 92---τπι, 9. 


22 thyself commit adultery? Dost thou who abhorrest idols, thyself 
23 commit robbery in holy things? Dost thou who gloriest in the 
24 law, thyself dishonour God by transgressing the law? For as it 
25 is written, “the-name of God is on your account blasphemed 
among the Gentiles.” 
Circumcision indeed is profitable, if thou dost obey the law; 
but if thou art a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision be- 
26 cometh uncircumcision. If, moreover, he who is uncircumcised 
keep the precepts of the law, shall not his uncireumcision be 
27 counted for circumcision? Yea, he who keepeth the law in his 
natural uncircumcised state, will condemn thee, who, in possession 
of the Scriptures and a partaker of circumcision, art a trans- 
egressor of the law. For he is not a Jew, who is one outwardly; 
nor is that which is outward, [merely | in the flesh, circumcision. 
29 But he is a Jew, who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of 
the heart, spiritual not literal; whose praise is not of men, but 
of God. 


Answer to some objections. Further confirmation of the depravity and guilt of the Jews. 
General conclusion from the facts stated. 


1Π. ‘Waar then is the advantage of the Jew? Or what the 
profit of circumcision ?’ 

2 Much in diverse respects; the most important however is, that 
they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 

3 ‘What then if some did not believe? Will their unbelief 
make void the faithfulness of God? 

4 By no means; but let God be [counted] true, and every man 
false; as it is written: “ That thou mightest be justified when 
thou speakest, and overcome when thou art judged.” 

5 ‘But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of 
God, what shall we rs As God unjust, who inflicteth punish- 
ment ?” 

6 (I speak after the manner of men).. By no means; otherwise, 
how shall God judge the world ? 

7 Still, if God’s faithfulness to his word has on account of my 
deceitfulness abounded more unto his glory, why am I any 
longer condemned as a sinner ?” 

8 Shall we then [say] (as it is slanderously reported and as 
some affirm that we do say): Let us do evil that good may 
come ? whose condemnation is just. 

9 ‘What then? Have we any pre-eminence?’ None at all; 
for we have already made good the charge against both Jews and : 


ROS ur. 10—rv. 1. 651 


10 Gentiles, that they are all under sin. As it is written ; “ There 
11 is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understand- 
12 eth, there is none who seeketh after God; all have gone out of 
the way, together have they become corrupt; there is none who 
13 doeth good, not even one. Their throat is an open sepulchre ; 
with their tongues do they deceive. The poison of asps is under 
14 their lips. | Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. — 
ὅν Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery attend 
43. their steps; | the way of peace they know not. There is no fear 
of God before their eyes. 
19 Now we know whatsoever things the law saith, it speaketh to 
those who are under the law; so that every mouth must be 
20 stopped, and the whole world become guilty before God, | be- 
cause that by works of law shall no flesh be justified betore aim; 
for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 


Gratuitous justification by Christ is the only way of salvation. 


21 But now, the justification without law which is of God is re- 
vealed, to which testimony is given by the law and the prophets; 
22 a justification then which is of God by faith in Jesus Christ ; 
[offered] to all, and [bestowed] on all who believe, for there is 
23 no distinction. For all have sinned and come short of divine 
24 approbation, | being justified freely by his grace through the 
25 redemption which is by Christ Jesus ; whom God hath set forth 
as ἃ propitiatory [sacrifice] by faith in his blood, in order to 
declare his justification through remission, by the forbearance of 
26 God, of sins formerly committed; in order to declare his justifi- 
cation at the present time; so that he might be just and yet 
the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. 
27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of 
28 works? Nay, but by the law of faith; for we have come to the 
conclusion, that a man is justified by faith without works of law. 
29 Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? 
30 Yea, of the Gentiles also; since it is one and the same God, 
who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised 
31 by faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? By 
no means; we confirm the law. 


The Scriptures of the Old Testament teach the doctrine of justification by grace only. 


IV. ‘Wuart then shall we say that Abraham our father obtained, © 
in respect to the flesh ? : 


652 ROMANS VI. 2, 20. 


2 Noground of glorying; for if Abraham was justified by works, 
he hath ground of glorying; but [this he hath] not before God. 

3 For what saith the Scripture? “And Abraham believed God, 

4 and it was counted to him for righteousness.” Now to him that 
worketh, reward is not counted as a matter of grace, but as a 

5 debt; but to him who worketh not, but believeth on him who 
justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. _ 

6 In like manner, also, David pronounceth happy the man, to 

7 whom God imputeth righteousness without works: “ Blessed are 
they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered ; 

8 blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity.” 

9 [Is] this a declaration of blessedness, then, concerning those 
who are circumcised [only], or concerning the uncircumcised ? 
[Concerning the uncircumcised also], for we say that faith was 

10 counted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it counted? © 
While he was in a state of circumcision, or of uncircumcision ? 
11 Not in a state of circumcision, but of uncircumcision. And he 
received the sign of circumcision, as a seal of the righteousness 
by faith which [he obtained] in a state of uncircumcision; in 
order that he might be the father of all the uncircumcised who 
believe, so that righteousness might also be counted to them; 
12 and the father of the circumcised, who are not only of the cir- 
eumcision, but walk in the steps of that faith which our father 
Abraham had while in a state of circumcision. 
15 For the promise was not made by law to Abraham or to his 
seed, that he should be heir of the word; but by the righteous- 
14 ness of faith. If now they who are of the law, are heirs, faith 
is rendered of no effect, and the promise is made void; for the 
law worketh wrath, because where there is no law there is no 
16 transgression. On this account it was of faith, so that it must 
be of grace, in order that the promise might be sure to all the 
seed, not only to him who is under the law, but to him who is of 
17 the faith of Abraham ;—who is the father of us all | (as it is 
written: “A father of many nations have I made thee”), in the 
sight of God in whom he believed, who giveth life to the dead, 
18 and ealleth the things which were not, as if they were; | who, 
against hope, believed in hope that he should become the father 
of many nations (according to what had been said: “ So shall 
19 thy seed be”); | and being not weak in faith, he considered not 
his own body already dead (as he was about one hundred years 
20 of age), nor yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb; neither did he 


22 


ὃ 
9 


10 


10 


ROMANS IV. 21.—v. 16. 653 


through unbelief doubt the promise of God, but he was strong 
in faith, giving glory to God, | and being fully persuaded that 
what he had promised he was also able to perform. Wherefore 
it was verily counted to him for righteousness. Yet it was not 
recorded merely for his own sake, that it was counted to him; but 
also for our sake to whom it will be counted, to us who believe 
on him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, | who was 
delivered up on account of our offences, and was raised for the 
sake of our justification. 


The fruits of justification, as to their certainty and extent. 

THEREFORE being justified by faith, we have peace with God, 
through our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom also we have obtained 
access [to God], through belief in that grace in which we stand, 
and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 

And not only so, but we rejoice also in our afflictions; knowing 
that affliction produceth patience, | and patience approbation, and 
approbation hope, | and hope maketh not ashamed; for the love 
of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is 
given to us. For while we were yet without strength, Christ 
died in due time for the ungodly. Now scarcely for a just man 
will any one die; although for his benefactor some one, perhaps, 
might venture even to die. But God commended his love to us, 
in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Much 
more, then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved 
from wrath by him. For, if, when we were enemies, we were 
reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more, being 
reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 

And not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord 
Jesus Christ, by whom we have now obtained reconciliation. 

Therefore, as by one man, sin entered into the world, and death 
by sin; and so death came upon all men, because that all have 
sinned; (for until the law sin was in the world, although sin is 
not accounted of where there is no law; yet death reigned from 
Adam unto Moses, even over those who had not sinned in like 
manner as Adam; who is a type of him that was to come. But 
not as the offence, so the free gift also; for if by the offence of 
one the many died, much more has the grace of God and the 
gift which is by the grace of one man, Jesus. Christ, abounded 
unto the many. Moreover, not as the [condemnation] by one 
who sinned, is the free gift; for sentence was by one [offence] 


654 ROMANS V. 17.—vr. 14. 


unto condemnation, but the free gift is unto justification from 
17 many offences. For if by the offence of one death reigned be- 
cause of that one, much more shall they who receive abundance 
of grace and of the gift of justification, reign in life by one, Jesus 
18 Christ) ; therefore, as by one offence [sentence came} upon all 
men unto condemnation, so by one righteousness [sentence came | 
19 upon all men unto justification of life; for as by the disobedience 
of one man the many were made sinners, so by the obedience of 
one the many will be made righteous. 
20 ‘The law moreover was introduced, so that offence should 
21 abound; but where sin abounded, grace superabounded; so that, 
as sin reigned by death, in like manner grace also might reign by 
justification unto eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. 


Gratuitous justification does not encourage men to sin, but restrains them from it, 
VI. Wuar shall we say then? May we continue in sin, that 
grace may abound ? } 
2 By nomeans. Howshall we, who are dead to sin, any longer 
3 live init? Know ye not, that so many of usas have been bap- 
4 tized into Christ Jesus, have been baptized into his death? We 
have then been buried with him by baptism into his death; so 
that, as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the 
Father, in like manner we also should walk in newness of life. 
5 For if we have become kindred with him by a death like unto 
6 his, then we shall also be [kindred] by a resurrection: for we 
know this, that our old man is crucified, as he was, that the body 
of sin might be destroyed, in order that we should no longer 
ἢ serve sin; for he who is dead, is freed from sin. If now we are 
dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him; 
9 knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more, 
10 death hath no longer any dominion over him. For in that he 
died, he died once for all unto sin; but in that he liveth, he 
11 liveth unto God. In like manner you also must account your- 
selves dead unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ. 
12 Let not sin reign, then, in your mortal body, that ye should 
13 obey the lusts thereof; neither proffer your members to sin as 
instruments of iniquity; but proffer yourselves to God as alive 
from the dead, and your members to God as instruments of 
14 righteousness. For sin shall not have dominion over you; since 
ye are not under the law, but under grace. 


ROMANS vi. 15—vit: 7. 655 


15 What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under law, 
but under grace ?” 

16 Bynomeans. Know ye not, that to whomsoever ye proffer 
yourselves as servants ready to obey, ye are servants to him 
whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto 

17 justification? But thanks be to God, that ye were the servants _ 
of sin, but have become obedient from the heart to that model 

18 of doctrine in which ye have been instructed. Moreover being 

19 freed from sin, ye have become the servants of righteousness (I 
speak in language common to men, because of the weakness occa- 
sioned by your flesh); for as ye have proffered your members as 
servants to impurity and iniquity in order to commit iniquity, so 
now proffer your members to righteousness in order to be holy. 

20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free in respect to 

21 righteousness. What fruit had ye then, in those things of which 

22 ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But 
now, being freed from sin and having become servants to God, 
ye have your fruit in respect to holiness, and in the end [ye will 

23 have] eternal life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of 
God, eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. 


Those who are under law cannot be freed from the power and penalty of sin. 


VII. Know ye not, brethren, (for 1 speak to those acquainted with 
the law,) that the law hath dominion over a man so long as he 

2 liveth? For the married woman is bound to her husband so 
long as he liveth; but if her husband die, she is freed from the 

3 law of her husband. ‘Therefore, if she marry another while her 
husband is living, she must be called an adulteress; but if her 
husband die, she is freed from the law, so that she will not 
become an adulteress by marrying another husband. 

4 Thus, my brethren, ye also have become dead to the law by 
the body of Christ, in order that ye should be joined to another 
who is risen from the dead; so that we may bring forth fruit 

5 unto God. For when we were in the flesh, our sinful passions 
which were by the law, wrought powerfully in our members to 

6 bring forth fruit unto death; but now we are freed from the law 
by which we were held in bondage, inasmuch as we have become 
dead to it; so that we must serve [God] with a new spirit, and 
not according to the ancient letter. 

7 ‘What shall we say then? Is the law sin? 

By nomeans. Still, I had not known sin except by the law; 


656 ROMANS Vil. 8---ΨΊ11. 3. 


for I had not known inordinate desire unless the law had _ said, 
8 ‘Thou shalt not desire inordinately.” But sin, taking occasion 
by the commandment, wrought out in me all manner of inordi- 
9 nate desire; for without the law sinisdead. Once, moreover, 1 
10 wasalive without the law; but when the commandment came, sin 
revived, and I died; yea, the commandment which was unto life, 
11 the very same was found to be death to me. For sin taking 
occasion by the commandment deceived me, and by it slew me; 
12 so that the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and 
good. 
13‘ Has then that which is good become death unto me?” 
By no means; but sin [has become death |], in order that it might 
manifest itself as causing death to me by that which is good, so 
that through the commandment sin might be exceedingly sinful, 
14 For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold 
15 under sin. For that which I practise, I approve not; for not 
16 what I approve do I perform, but that which I hate, I do. If 
then I do that which I approve not, I give consent to the law as 
17 good. But now it is no longer I who do this, but sin which 
18 dwelleth in me. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, 
there dwelleth no good thing; for to approve is easy for me, 
19 but to do what is good I find no [readiness]. For the good 
which I approve, that I do not; but the evil which I condemn, 
20 that I do. Now if I do that which I approve not, it is no longer 
21 I who do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. I find, then, that it 
is a law to me, when desirous to do good, that evil is near to me. 
22 For I take pleasure in the law of God, as to the inner man; 
23 butI perceive another law in my members, warring against the 
law of my mind, and making mea captive to the law of sin which 
24 isin my members. Wretched man that lam! Whoshall de- 
25 liver me from the body which causeth this death? I thank God, 
through Jesus Christ our Lord! Wherefore I, the same person, 
serve with my mind the law of God, but with my flesh the law 
of sin. 


A state of grace delivers from the bondage and penalty of sin. 
VIII. But now, there is no condemnation to those who are in 
2 Christ Jesus.* For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, 
3 hath freed me from the law of sin and death. For what the law 


* Who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, is probably spurious here, and is therefore 
omitted. 


ROMANS VIII. 22. 657 


could not accomplish, in that it was weak through the flesh, God 
[accomplished], who, sending his own Son in the likeness of 
_ sinful flesh and on account of sin, condemned sin in the flesh; 
_4 so that the precepts of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk 
5 not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For they 
who are according to the flesh, do mind the things of the flesh; - 
but they who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 
6 For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is 
7 lifeand peace. Because the mind of the flesh is enmity against 
God ; for it is not subject to his law, nor indeed can be. ‘Those 
8 then who are in the flesh cannot please God. - Ye, however, are 
9 not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God 
dwelleth in you. If now any one hath not the Spirit of Christ, 
10 he is none of his; but if Christ be in you, the body indeed is 
mortified on account of sin, but the Spirit liveth on account of 
11 righteousness, But if the Spirit of him who raised up Jesus 
from the dead, dwelleth in you, he who raised up Christ from 
the dead will also quicken your mortal bodies, because of his 
_ Spirit which dwelleth in you. 
12 ‘Therefore brethren, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live 
13 according to the flesh ; | for if ye live according to the flesh, ye 
shall die; but if through the Spirit ye mortify the deeds of the 
14 body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of 
15 God, the same are the sons of God. For ye have not received 
a servile spirit, that ye should again be in fear: but ye have re- 
16 ceived a filial Spirit, by which we cry Abba, Father! The same 
Spirit beareth witness in our spirit, that we are children of 
17 God. But if children, then heirs; heirs truly of God, and joint 
heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with him in order that 
we may be also glorified with him. 


Fruits of the grace and sanctification proffered in the gospel. 


18 Moreover I reckon the sufferings of the present time as not 
worthy of regard, when compared with the glory which is to be 
19 revealed to us. For the earnest expectation of the creature is 
20 waiting for the revelation of the children of God. For the 
21 creature was made subject to frailty (not of its own choice, but 
through him who put it in subjection), in hope that this same 
τ΄ ereature may be freed from the bondage of a perishing state, and 
22 [brought] into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For 
we know that every creature sighs and groans together even to 
: 27 


658 ROMANS VIII. 39—rx. 2. 


23 the present time. Yet not only so, but those who have the first 
fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, 

24 waiting for adoption, the redemption of our body. For we are 
saved in hope. Now hope which is seen, is not hope: for what 

25 a man seeth, how doth he still hope for it? But if we hope for 
that which we do not see, we patiently wait for it. 

26 = In like manner, also, the Spirit helpeth much our infirmities ; 
for we know not what we should pray for as we ought; the same 
Spirit, however, maketh earnest intercession for us, in sighs 

27 which cannot be uttered; but he who searcheth hearts knoweth 
the mind of the Spirit, that he maketh intercession in behalf of 
the saints according to the will of God. 

28 We know, moreover, that all things work together for good to 
those who love God, to those who are called according to his 

29 purpose. For those whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to 
be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he should 

30 be the first-born among many brethren. ‘Those also whom he 
predestinated, the same he likewise called; and those whom he 
called, the same he also justified ; and those whom he justified, 
the same he also glorified. 

31 What shall we say, then, concerning these things? If God be 

32 for us, who is against us? Even he dis spared not his own Son, 
but give him up for us all—how shall he not also with him freely 

33 give us allthings? | Who shall accuse the elect of God? It is 

34 God that justifieth; | who is he that condemneth? It is Christ 
who died [for us]; yea rather, who has also risen, who moreover 

35 is at the right hand of God, and also intercedeth for us. Who 
shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall affliction, or 
anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, orsword? 

36 (As it is written: “ For thy sake are we continually exposed to 

37 death, we are counted as sheep for the slaughter.”) Nay, in all 
these nee we are more than conquerors throngh him who loved 

38 us. For Tam persuaded that neither death nor life, neither angels 
nor principalities, neither things present nor future, nor powers, 

39 | neither height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be 
able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus 


our Lord. 
God has a right to make those whom he chooses to be partakers of his favour; and this right he 
has always exercised, 


IX. I say the truth in Christ, I do not speak falsely (as my con- 
2 science testifieth for me in the Holy Spirit), | that I have great 


ROMANS ΙΧ. 23. 659 


‘3 sorrow and continual anguish in my heart. For 1 could wish 
even myself to be devoted to destruction by Christ, instead of 
4 my brethren, my kinsmen after the flesh ; | who are Israelites ; 
to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the cove- 
nants, and the giving of the law, and the rites of service, and the 
5 promises; | whose are the fathers; and from whom Christ — 
[descended] in respect to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed 
for ever, Amen! 
6 However, it is not so that the word of God hia been rendered 
7 void; for they are not all Israel who are of Israel; | neither are 
8 all the seed of Abraham children, | but, “in Teas shall thy seed 
be called;” that is, not the children of the flesh are the children 
of God, but the children of promise, are counted for the seed. 
9 For the word of promise was thus: According to this time will 
I come, and Sarah shall have a son.” 
10 And not only so, but Rebecca also, having conceived by one, 
11 Isaac our father, | for [the children] being not yet born, neither 
having done any thing good or evil, that the purpose of God 
according to election might stand, not of works but of him that 
12 calleth), | it was said to her; “'The elder shall serve the younger;” 
13 | as it is written: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” 
14 “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with 
God ?” 
18 By no means; for he saith to Moses: “I will have mercy on 
whomsoever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on 
16 whomsoever I will have compassion.” Therefore it is not of him 
that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God who showeth 
17 mercy. For the Scripture saith to Pharaoh: “ For this very 
purpose have I roused thee up, that I might show forth my power 
18 in thee, and declare my name in all the land.” ‘Therefore on 
whom he will he hath mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 
19 Thou wilt say then tome; Why doth he yet find fault, for 
20 who hath resisted his will? But rather [I may say], Who art 
thou, O man, that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed. 
21 say to him who formed it: Why hast thou made me thus? Hath 
not the potter power over the clay, to make out of the same 
22 lump one vessel to honour and another to dishonour? What 
now if God, purposing to manifest his indignation and make 
_ known his power, endured with much long-suffering the vessels 
23 of wrath fitted for destruction; and that he might make known 
' the riches of his glorygtowards the vessels of mercy which he 


660 ROMANS Ix. 33——x. 8. 


24 had before prepared for glory, | [shewed mercy] even to us whom 
he hath called, not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles ? 
25 To the like purpose he saith also in Hosea: “I will call him 
who was not my people, my people; and her who was not my 
26 beloved, beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place 
where it was said to them: ‘ Ye are not my people,’ there shall 
they be called the sons of the living God.” 
27 Isaiah moreover saith concerning Israel: “ Although the 
number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, [only] 
28 a remnant shall be saved. For he will execute his word which 
he hath decreed in righteousness; for the Lord will execute 
29 his word decreed concerning the land.” Yea, as Isaiah had before 
said, “ Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a remnant, we 
should have been like Sodom, we should have been made like 
to Gomorrah.” 
30 ‘What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who did not 
seek after justification, have obtained justification, and that jus- 
31 tification, whichis by faith; but Israel, who sought after a law of 
32 justification, have not attained to a law of justification. Why? 
Because [they sought] not by faith, but by works of law; for 
33 they stumbled at the stone of stumbling; | as it is written: “Be- 
hold! I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence ; 
but every one who believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” 


The unbelief and rejection of the Jews, and the reception of the Gentiles through faith, are truly 
consistent with the declarations of the ancient Scriptures. 


X. ΒΒΕΤΗΒΕΝ, the kind desire of my heart and my prayer to 

2 God for them is, that they may be saved. For I bear them 

witness, that they have a zeal for God, but not according to 

3 knowledge. For being ignorant of the justification which is of 

God, and seeking to establish their own justification, they have 

-4 not submitted themselves to the justification which is of God. 

For Christ is the end of the law unto justification, for one who 
believeth. 

5 For Moses describeth the justification which is of the law; 

namely, “ The man who doeth these things shall live by them.” 

6 But justification by faith speaketh in this manner: “ Say not in 

_ thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven?” that is, to bring 

_7 down Christ; or, “ Who shall descend into the abyss?” that is, 

8 to bring up Christ from the dead. But what saith it? “ The 

word is near to thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart; that is, the 


ROMANS X. 21.—x1. 4. 661 


9 word of faith which we preach. For if thou shalt openly confess 
the Lord Jesus with thy mouth, and believe in thy heart that God 
10 raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved; because with the 
heart there is belief unto justification, and with the mouth there 
11 is confession unto salvation. For the Scripture saith: “‘ No one 
who believeth on him, shall be ashamed.” - 
12 ‘There is therefore no difference between the Jew and Greek; 
because there is the same Lord of all, who is rich [in mercy] 
13 unto all them that call upon him; for “every one who calleth 
on the name of the Lord, shall be saved.” 
14 ‘How then shall they call on him in whom they have not 
believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they 
15 have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher ? 
| And how shall they preach, except they be sent?’ As it is 
written: “ How beautiful are the feet of those who publish sal- 
vation, who proclaim good tidings !” 
10 =Yetall have not obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah saith: “ Lord, 
who hath believed our report ?” | 
1 ‘Faith, then, cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of 
God.’ | 
18 ButIsay, Have they not heard? Yea, truly, “their sound 
hath gone forth into all the earth; their words to the ends of the 
19 world.” But Isay: Doth not Israel know? First Moses saith ; 
“1 will move you to jealousy by that which isno nation; I will 
20 excite you to indignation by a foolish people.” But Isaiah is 
very bold, and saith: “I was found by those who sought me 
not; I made myself manifest to those who did not inquire for 
21 me.” But unto Israel he saith: “All the day long have I 
stretched out my hand to a disobedient and gainsaying people.” 


God hath not cast away the Jews entirely and utterly. Some are now saved; and all will 
finally be converted, with the fulness of the Gentiles. God’s dealings with them are un- 
searchable, but wise. νὰ 


ΧΙ. ‘I say then, hath God cast away his people ?’ | 
2 By no means; for I myself am an Israelite, of the seed of 
Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away 
his people whom he foreknew. Know ye not what the Scrip- 
ture saith in [the history of] Elijah, when he maketh interces- 
3 sion to God against Israel ? ‘Lord, they have killed thy prophets, 
and digged down thine altars; and I only am left, and they are 
‘4 seeking my life,” But what saith the answer of God to him? 


662 ROMANS ΧΙ, 24. 


“T have reserved for myself seven thousand men, who have not 
5 bowed the knee to Baal.” In like manner, then, there is even at 
the present time a remnant according to the election of grace. 
6 But if it be of grace, then it isno more of works; otherwise 
grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, it is no more 
of grace; otherwise work is no more work. 3 
7 ‘What then? that which Israel sought after, he hath not 
obtamed.’ 
8  Butthe elect have obtained it; and the rest were blinded; | as 
it is written: “ God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes 
9 that see not and ears that hear not, even unto this day.” Dayid 
also saith: “ Let their table become a snare to catch them, and 

10 an occasion of falling and a recompence to them. Let-their eyes 
be darkened so that they cannot see, and their back be always 
bowed down.” 

11 ‘Isay then, have they stumbled so as utterly to fall?’ 

By no means; but by their fall salvation [is come] to the Gen- 

12 tiles to provoke their emulation. If now their fall hath been the 
riches of the world, and their degradation the riches of the Gen- 

13 tiles, how much more their fulness? For I say this to you 
Gentiles (inasmuch as I am indeed an apostle of the Gentiles 1 

14 do honour to my office), | if by any means I may excite to emula- 
tion some of my kinsmen after the flesh, and save some of them. 

15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciliation of the 
world, what shall the reception of them be but life from the dead. 

16 If, moreover, the first-fruits were holy, so shall the mass be; and 

17 if the root be holy, so will be the branches. But if some of the 
branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wert 
engrafted in their stead and made partaker of the root and fatness 

18 of the olive, | glory not over the branches; but if thou dost 

19 glory, thou dost not support the root but the root thee. Thou 
wilt say, then: ‘The branches were broken off, that I might be 

20 grafted in” Be it so: they were broken off by unbelief, and 

21 thou standest by faith; be not high-minded but fear; for if God 
spared not the natural branches, then [fear] lest he should not 
spare thee. 

22 Behold, then, the kindness and severity of God! + Severity 
toward those who have fallen away; but kindness toward thee, 
provided thou dost abide in his kindness, otherwise even thou 

23 shalt be cut off. But even they, unless they continue in unbelief, 

24 shall be grafted in; for God is able again to graft themin, For 


ROMANS XI. 8θ.--- ΧΙ]. 6. 663 


if thou wert cut out from the olive which was wild by nature and 
contrary to thy nature, how much more shall the natural branches 
be grafted into their own olive! 

25 Moreover I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this 
mystery (lest ye should be wise in your own conceit), that blind- 
ness has come upon Israel in part, until the fulness of the Gen- - 

26 tiles shall come in. And thusall Israel shall be saved: even as 
it is written: “ A deliverer shall come out of Zion, and shall turn 

27 away ungodliness from Jacob ;” | also: “ This is my covenant 

28 with them, when I shall take away their sins.” In respect to the 
gospel [they have become] enemies on your account; but in 
respect to the election [they are] beloved for their fathers’ sake. 

ἢ) For the gifts and callings of God, he will not repent of. Foras 
ye were formerly disobedient to God, but have now obtained 

31 mercy through their unbelief; so they too have now become dis- 
obedient, that they may obtain mercy through the mercy shown 

32 to you. For God concluded all in unbelief, so that he might 
have mercy on all, 

33  O the boundless riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of 
God! How unsearchable are his counsels, and his ways past 

34 finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who 

35 hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given him any 

36 thing, and it will be repaid? For of him, and by him, and for 
him, are all things; to him be glory for ever, Amen ! 

Exhortation to piety, humility, diligent improvement of gifts, kind sympathy and benevolent 

feeling. 

XII. I enrreat you, therefore, bythe tender mercies of God, to pre- 
sent your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God which 

2 is your rational service. And be not conformed to this world ; 
but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye 
may learn what the will of God is, even that which is good and 
acceptable and perfect. 

3  Isay, moreover, by the grace given to me, to every one among 
you, that he think not of himself more highly than he ought to 
think, but that he think modestly, according to the measure of 

4 faith which God hath imparted to him. For as in one body we 
have many members, but all the members have not the same 

5 office, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and are mem- 
bers one of another, 

6 Having then gifts which differ according to the grace that is 


664 ROMANS XII. 21.—xu11. 7. 


given us, whether prophecy, [let it be] according to the propor- 
7 tion of faith ; | whether ministry, [let there be diligence] in min- 
8 istration; whether teaching, in instruction; | or exhorting, in 
exhortation. Let the distributor [do his duty] with simplicity; 
the superintendant, with diligence ; he who performs offices of 
9 compassion, with cheerfulness. Let benevolence be sincere ; 
abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. 
10 ΑΒ to brotherly love, [be] kindly affectionate one toward an- 
11 other; as to honour, give to each other the preference ; | as to 
diligence, be not slothful; be fervent in spirit; engaged in the 
12 Lord’s service ; | rejoice in hope; be patient in affliction ; per- 
13 severe in prayer; make the wants of the saints your own ; prac- 
14 tise hospitality. Bless those who curse you; bless, and curse 
15 not. Rejoice with those who rejoice ; and weep with those who 
16 weep. Think mutually the same thing; do not regard high 
things, but suffer yourselves to be influenced by humble ones. 
Be not wise in your own conceit. 
17 Render to no man evil for evil; seek after that which is good 
18 in the sight of all. If it be possible, so far as in you lieth, be at 
19 peace with all men. Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but defer 
anger; for it is written: “Retribution is mine, I will render it, 
20 saith the Lord.” Therefore, “if thine enemy hunger, feed him; 
if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing, thou shalt heap 
21 coals of fire upon his head.” Be not overcome by evil, but 
_ overcome evil with good. 


Exhortation to obey civil rulers, and to exhibit a kind and peaceable demeanour towards all men, 


XIII. Ler every soul be subject to the supreme magistracies,; for 

there is no magistracy except of God; and those which be, are or- 

2 dained of God. So he that resisteth the magistracy, resisteth the 

ordinance of God; and they who resist, shall receive for them- 

3 selves condemnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works 

but to evil ones; and wilt thou not stand in awe of the magis- 

4 tracy? Do good, and thou shalt have praise for it; for [the 

magistrate] is a servant of God for thy benefit. But if thou 

doest evil, fear; for he beareth the sword not in vain, since he is 

the minister of God, avenging unto indignation the evil-doer. 

5 Therefore we ought to yield subjection, not only because of 
indignation, but for conscience’ sake. 

6  Onthis very account also pay tribute; for they are God’s min- 

7 isterswhoattendtothis matter. Thereforerendertoall that which 


13 


14 


ROMANS ΧΙῚ, 14.—xrv. 9. 665 


is due; tribute, to whom tribute; custom, to whom custom; fear, 
to whom fear; honour, to whom honour. Owe no man any 
thing, except to love one another; for he who loveth another 
fulfilleth the law. For this [is the law]: “ Thou shalt not com- 
mit adultery; thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal; thou 
shalt not covet ;” and if there be any other command, it is sum- ~ 
marily comprehended in this precept, namely: “ ‘Thou shalt love 
thy neighbour as thyself.” Love worketh no ill to its neighbour; 
love, then, is the fulfilling of the law. 

And this [do], since ye know the time, that the hour has already 
come when we should awake out of sleep; for now is our salva- 
tion nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the 
day is at hand; let us put away then the works of darkness, and 
put on the armour of light. Let us walk in a becoming manner, 
as in the day; not in revelling and drunkenness, not in chamber- 
ing and wantonness, not in strife and bitter envy; | but put ye 
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, in 
respect to its lusts. 


Caution against making external rites and observances matters of division and contention among 


Christians. 


XIV. Hr» that is weak in faith receive with kindness, not in order 


2 
3 


4 


to judge of his opinions. One believeth that he may eat every 

thing; but he who is weak eateth herbs. Let not him who 

eateth, despise him who eateth not; nor him who eateth not, 

condemn him who eateth; for God hath accepted him. Who art 
thou, that condemnest the servant of another? By his own 

master he standeth or falleth; and he shall stand, for God 18 

able to make him stand. . 

One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth. 
every day [alike]; let each one be fully persuaded in his own 

mind.. He who regardeth the day, regardeth it for [the honour- 
ing of] the Lord; and he who regardeth not the day, for [the~ 
honouring of] the Lord he doth not regard it. Likewise he 
who eateth, eateth for [the honouring of] the Lord, for he giveth 
God thanks ; and he who eateth not for [the honouring of] the 
Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For no one of us 
liveth to himself; and no one of us dieth to himself; for whether 
we live, we live to the Lord, and whether we die we die to the 


9 Lord; whether we live, then, or die, we are the Lord’s, For 


666 ROMANS XIv. 23.—xv. 4. 


Christ both died and revived for this very purpose, that he might 
be Lord of the dead and of the living. 
10 But thou, why dost thou condemn thy brother? Even thou, 
why dost thou despise thy brother? For we must all stand 
11 before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, “ As I 
live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every 
12 tongue shall confess to God.” Every one of us, therefore, must 
give an account of himself to God. | 
15. + Let us, then, no longer judge one another; but rather let us 
decide not to put a stumbling-block or a cause of falling in the 
14 way of a brother. I know, and am persuaded of the Lord 
Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; but to him who deemeth 
15 any thing to be unclean, it is unclean. Now-if thy brother is 
grieved because of meat, thou dost not walk as love requireth; 
16 destroy not him by thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not 
17 your good, then, be evil spoken of; for the kingdom of God is 
not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the 
Holy Ghost. 
18 Nowhe who serveth Christ, as to these things, is acceptable to 
19 God and approved by men. ‘Therefore let us strive after peace 
20 and mutual edification. Destroy not the work of God on account 
of meat. All [meats] are clean; yet they are hurtful to him, 
21 who eateth so as to give offence thereby. It is good not to eat 
flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [to do any thing] whereby thy 
brother stumbleth, or hath cause of offence, or is made weak. 
22 Hast thou faith, keep it to thyself before God. Happy the man, 
23 who doth not condemn himself in that which he alloweth! But 
he who doubteth, is condemned if he eat, because it is not of 
faith; and every thing which is not of faith, is sin. 
Various exhortations to charity and kindness. Expression of the apostle’s regard for the 


church at Rome, of his intention to visit them, and of his desire for an interest in 
their prayers. 


XV. We however, who are strong, ought to bear with the in- 
2 firmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each 
one of us please his neighbour, in respect to that which is good, 

3 unto edification. For Christ did not seek his own pleasure; but 
[with him it was| according to that which was written: “ The 
reproaches of those who reproached thee, have fallen upon me.” 

4 For whatsoever things were written in ancient times, were 
written for our instruction; that through patience and the ad- 
monition of the Scriptures, we might obtain hope. 


ROMANS Xv. 23. 667 


5 Nowmay the God from whom is patience and admonition, give 
to you mutual unity of sentiment, according to Christ Jesus 
6 that with one mind and with one voice ye may glorify God, even 
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! 
7 Wherefore deal kindly with each other, even as Christ hath 
dealt kindly with you, unto the glory of God. 
8 I say, moreover, that Jesus Christ became the minister of the 
circumcision, on account of the truth of God, in order to confirm 
9 the promises made to the fathers; also, that the Gentiles shall 
glorify God for his mercy; even as it is written: ‘ Therefore 
will I celebrate thy praise among the Gentiles, and to thy name 
10 wil I sing.” And again he saith: “ Rejoice ye Gentiles, with 
11 his people.” And again: “ Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and 
12 laud him, all ye people.” And again Isaiah saith; ‘ There shall 
be a root of Jesse, and one shall rise to be a leader of the Gen- 
tiles: upon him shall the Gentiles place their hopes.” 
15. Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in 
believing, that you may abound in hope, through the influence 
of the Holy Spirit! 
14 Moreover I am myself well persuaded concerning you, my 
brethren, that ye are full of kindness, abounding in all know- 
15 ledge, and able to admonish one another. But I have written 
to you in part the more boldly, brethren, as one repeating admo- 
nitions, because of the grace which is bestowed by God upon me, 
16 | that I should be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, 
performing the office of a priest in respect to the gospel of God, 
that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being 
17 purified by the Holy Spirit. I have then cause of glorying in 
18 Christ Jesus, as to those things which pertain to God: for I will 
not venture to mention any thing which Christ hath not wrought 
by me, in order to bring the Gentiles to obedience, by word and 
19 by deed, | by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of 
the Holy Spirit; so that from Jerusalem and round about, even 
20 to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ, | and 
I was strongly desirous so to preach the gospel (not where 
Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foun- 
21 dation, | but) as it is written: “They shall see to whom no 
declaration was made respecting him, and they who have not 
heard shall understand.” 
22 On this account I have been peta hindered from coming to. 
23 you. But now, having no longer any place in these regions 


668 ROMANS XV. 33—XvVI. 12. 


24 and being desirous for many years of making you a visit ; when- 
ever I may go into Spain, I hope, as I pass on, to see you, and 
to be sent on my way thither, when I am in part first satisfied 

25 with your company. But at present I am going to Jerusalem, 

26 to supply the wants of the saints.—For it hath seemed good to 
Macedonia and Achaia, to make some contribution for the saints 

27 in poverty at Jerusalem. [I say] it hath seemed good, for verily 
they are debtors; because if the Gentiles have shared in their 
spiritual things, they ought surely to assist them in temporal 

28 things. Now when this duty shall have been performed, and 
this fruit secured to them, I shall pass through the midst of you 

29 into Spain. I know, also, that when I come to you, I shall 

. come with abundant blessings of the gospel of Christ. 

30 Moreover I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ 
and by the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together for me, in 

31 your prayers to God in my behalf, | that I may be delivered 
from the unbelieving in Judea, and that my service for Jeru- 

32 salem may be acceptable to the saints; [also] that I may come 
to you with joy (if God will), and may be refreshed among you 

33 The God of peace be with you all, Amen! 


Various salutations. Caution against divisions. Conclusion. 


XVI. Now 1 commend to you Phebe our sister, who is a deacon- 

2 ess of the church of Cenchrea, | that ye may receive her in the 

Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and give her assistance 

in any thing wherein she may need it of you; for she herself 
hath been a helper of many, and especially of me. 

ὃ. Salute Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow-labourers in Christ Je- 

4 sus | (who exposed themselves to great danger in my behalf; to 

whom not only I myself am grateful, but even all the churches 

of the Gentiles); | and the church which is at their house. 

5 Salute Epenetus, my beloved, who is the first fruit of Asia in 

3} Christ. Salute Mary, who laboured much for us. Salute An-: 

dronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow-prisoners, who are of 

8 note among the apostles, and who were before me in Christ. Sa- 

9 lute Amplias my beloved in the Lord. Salute Urbanus, our’ 

10 fellow-labourer in Christ. Salute them of the household of 

11 Aristobulus. Salute Herodian, my kinsman. Salute them of 

12 the household of Narcissus, who are in the Lord. Salute Try- 

phene and Tryphosa,; who labour in the Lord. Salute Persis* 


ROMANS XVI. 97. 669 


13 the beloved, who laboured much in the Lord. Salute Rufus, 
14 elect in the Lord, and his mother, and mine. Salute Asyn- 
critus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren 

15 with them.—Salute Philologus and Julias, Nereus and his sister, 

16 and Olympas, and all the saints with them. Salute each other 
with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ salute you. ‘ 

17 Moreover I beseech you, brethren, to beware of those who 
occasion divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrines 

18 which ye have learned. For such serve not the Lord Jesus 
Christ, but their own appetite; and by flattery and fair speeches 

19 they beguile the minds of the simple. For your obedience is 
known to all; I rejoice therefore concerning you, and desire 
you to be wise in respect to that which is good, but simple in 

20 respect to that which is evil. May the God of all peace shortly 
bruise Satan under your feet! The grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christ be with you! 

21 Timothy my fellow-labourer, and Luke and Jason, and Sosi- 

22 pater, my kinsmen, salute. you. (1 Tertius, who wrote this 

23 epistle, salute you in the Lord.) Gaius saluteth you, who is my 
host and that of the whole church. Erastus saluteth you, the 

24 chamberlain of the city, and Quartus, a brother. The grace of 
our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, Amen! 

25 Now unto him who is able to antabliok you, according to my 
gospel, even the gospel of Jesus Christ; according to the reve- 
lation of the mystery which was kept silent in ancient times, 

26 | but is now manifested by the prophetic Scriptures, [and] ac- 
cording to the command of the eternal God made known to all 

27 nations for the obedience of faith;—to the only wise God, 
through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever, Amen! 


APPENDIX. 


The object of this Appendix, is to present a brief view of the most distinguished commentators, 
ancient and modern, upon the Epistle to the Romans. 

Origen ($253), Comm. in Ep. ad Rom., in Vol. IV. ed. de la 
Rue ; extant only in the Latin translation of Rufinus, by whom it 
was abridged in some places, and enlarged in others. Like all of 
Origen’s expositions, it contains not a little that is anciful or arbi- 
trary; but it also contains some good hints. 

Chrysostom (407). Homil. XX XII. in Ep. ad Rom., Vol. TX. 
ed. Montf.; distinguished by much sound interpretation, simplicity 
of representation, elegance of language, and a glowing ardour of 
piety. ‘The master-piece of ancient commentary. 

Augustine (430), Inchoata Expos. Ep. ad Rom., also Expos. 
quarundam Proposit. ex Ep. ad Rom., in Vol. I. Opp. dl Benedict; 
dogmatic rather than philological, yet not without acuteness. 

Theodoret (f circa 450), whose commentary is contained in Vol. 
III, ed. Halle. His interpretations are, for the most part, brief, 
plain, grammatical, and direct. But they are not always well 
studied, nor very weighty. He is inferior to Chrysostom in his 
remarks on this epistle. 

Oecumenius (cent. 10), Comm. in Ep. Pauli, Paris, 1631; contains 
excerpts from Chrysostom, Photius, Basil, &c., with remarks of his 
own. ‘They are highly valued by critics. 

Theophylact (cent. 11), Comm. in Ep. Pauli, Lond. 1630; con- 
tains an abridgment of Chrysostom, which is very acceptable to the 
beginner in the reading of Greek commentary ; even more so than 
the original, as it is exceedingly easy and plain. 

Besides these, there is a Comm. of Pelagius, printed in Hieron, 
Opp. Tom. V. ed. Mart., abridged and augmented by Cassiodorus, so 
that what is genuine can no longer be certainly ascertained. Also 
Hilary (commonly named Ambrostaster) published a Comm. on the 
13 Epistles of Paul. It is of little value. Who this Hilary was is 


unknown. 


APPENDIX. 674 


- Thomas Aquinas (f1274), Comm. in Ep. Pauli. Ant. 1591 ; con- 
tains some very acute theological commentary; : philological is not to 
be expected from him. 

Erasmus (1536), Paraphrasis in Ep. ad Rom., in Crit. Sac. Tom. 
VII.; fine Latin, and many good remarks. The main object of the 
epistle he does not seem to have rightly apprehended. 

Calvin, Comm. &c., in Opp., Tom. VII.; fundamental investiga- 
tion of the logic and course of thought contained in the epistle; very 
_ little verbal criticism. Many a difficulty is solved without any ap- 
_ pearance of effort, or any show of learning. Calvin is by far the 
most distinguished of all the conmentators of his times. 

Melancthon and Zuingle wrote Scholia merely, on the Ep. to the 
Romans. Both exhibit good hints, but not much philology. Their 
Notes are contained in their respective Works. 

Beza (1605), Nov. Test. 1598. His Notes on Romans are va- 
Juable in a grammatical and philological point of view. He was an 
excellent Greek scholar; and his Notes are almost always worth 
consulting. 

Bucer ($1551), Metaphrases et Enarrationes Ep. Pauli, 1586; 
distinguished for natural and artless interpretation, and a good talent 
for this department of labour. 

Grotius (1645), Comm. in Opp.; also separately, Par. 1644, 2 
Vols. Remarks philological, grammatical, historical, antiquarian, 
&c., distinguished all the exegetical works of Grotius, beyond those 
of any writer before him, or in his day. “ The shell he takes off 
with wonderful dexterity; but the nut he seldom tastes, and more 
seldom relishes.” | 

Hunnius, Justinian, Cornelius a Lapide, Baldwin, Cocceius, Seb. 
Schmidt, Limborch, S. J. Baumgarten, J. B. Carpzov, Wolf, Heu- 
mann, C. Schmid, have all written commentaries, more or less, on the 
Ep. to the Romans. Some good things may be found in most of 
them; but hardly enough to repay the trouble of reading at the pre- 
sent day. 

In the Critici Sacri, (Amstelod.), are contained the Comm. of 
Valla, Revius, Erasmus, Vatablus, Castalio, Clarius, Zegerus, Dru- 
sius, Casaubonus, Gualterius, Cameronius, Jac. and Ludov. Capel- 
lus, and Grotius. Of these, Drusius, Erasmus, Clarius, Grotius, 
Cameronius, and J. Capellus, are especially worth consulting. 

J. A.Turretin ({1737), Prelectiones in Ep. ad Romanos (in Opp.)* 
of distinguished exegetical talent; for the most part his interpreta- 


~ 


672 APPENDIX. 


tion is simple and natural, and adorned with some admirable refer- 
ences to the classics. A truly multwm in parvo book. 3 
Koppe (1791), in Novo Test. Koppiano. The manner of the 
interpretation is good, being simple and philological. But Koppe 
had not deeply studied this epistle, nor does he seem to have imbibed 
the true spirit of it. : 
Besides the commentators in form, already named, there are several 
important subsidiary works; 6. g., Schdttgen, Horae Talmudicae, 
Tom. I. Elsner, Observatt. Sacre, Tom. II, Kypke, Observatt. 
Sac. Tom. II. Bauer, Philol. Thucyd. Paulina. Raphel, Annott. 
Philol. in N, Test. ex Xenophonte, &c., Vol. II. Palairet, Observ. 
Philo]. Crit. in N. Test. Krebs, Observatt.e Josepho. Lésner, 


Observatt. e Philone. Miinthe, Observ. e Diodoro. Rambach, In- 


troduct. histor. theol. in Ep. Pauli ad Romanos. 

Recent works on the epistle to the Romans are those of Platt and 
Tholuck ; both of them excellent, but especially the latter. Tholuck 
has greatly the advantage as a philologist. Of him I have suffi- 
ciently spoken in my preface to the first edition. I regret much that 
his new edition corrected, with Excursus, &e., has not yet come to 
hand in this country. 

Of the very recent works on this epistle, I have spoken sufficiently 
in my preface to the present edition; and therefore need not here 
recount them. 

The English works on the Epistle to the Romans, are too well 
known to need mentioning or recommending here. Henry, Whitby, 
Doddridge, Guise, John Taylor, Macknight, Scott, A. Clarke, Bloom- 
field, and many others, are known to all who study commentary. 


m‘CORQUODALE AND CO., PRINTERS, LONDON.—WORKS, NEWTON, 


τ τ x : 
IS 


ἜΡΟΝ A eae «| 2 
Ἷ ΠΣ Ae τιν 


4 at 
AR το 
: er dat ehh 


te ΟΣ 
“4. ἢ Se 4 
“AAG 


at sa TM 
* 


ee 


ae ae 
Tee es ἥδ. 
4 whe id 


a 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


Return to desk from which borrowed. 
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 


ako HE 
9Mard4DJ 
FEB 26 4954 Lt 


ont 9 
93 
eee 


LD 21-100m-—11,'49 (B7146816) 476 


ert TD 
SE — σας  — 
eee pea 
——————————————— eee — —— at —_ 
ee ee ------ — 
Ξ:---Ξ-----1:.:5. 5... 1." 1.55. = — - 
———$—$—$—<————————————————— a = ------ σ΄ “".--- -- — — κασαροΣ — —-——— 
eee — ——— θα προσ τοαα ——— ee -- 
—————————————————————————— ee ------ π΄ “τ τ --- ea —— 1 πῆς τς - == 
———— es ener menriaaat ——— υτονααισαα, aes = = oo = ———— =a <— ----͵ τ΄ ---.-.----222. Es 
a i—* - - =e ES SS: a ooo PSL a is _ ------:.------- eS eee — 
ee : ooo = = — — ——————— = = ee _—CEFHEPE-C~-——O eee ae 
τον 5 s - “-- ...΄..-. ———— = ----- - ——— 
a ne oe eee ae — 
—— - = = — ee $e ee es OOO 
———o OS ἃ ee es ee —— 
: ————— = a eo  ----- -------- 33. — στον... Ὁ--Τ]}»-.--------- τας---------- 
—s— = rs pee SS Ἔ 
Se ταν τοὶ <a Ἢ oo "τ... -.-- ο΄ Ό- - ----- 
ee cat & —— ————— -.---͵- τορος τσ τος τα ooo 
———= SS SS a - --.5::.::Ξ.---:.::::3-:.::----- 
= a, OO I τσ --- -- δι 
eae! aes eer a — Ε.---------. 
ani | ρας το —— 
a ee ee - Κα : 3ΞΞΞΞΞΞ 
—————— er . πἀο ον δι ΞΒΗ͂Ι + ——— 
en ee 6065 πο ᾿ 
SS eee τῶν τ τα 35Ξ:Ξ--- 
τ Στ τ τας. ὦν «Ὁ, »----------- 
ee παν τς τα - ———— 
ee ee “Ὁ ——— 
—— — — — -- 
———  — Το το. ἊΝ ---- 
ee. oe ay 3 ——— 
St re ας μα 
Ss a te = ————— 
——— σπρο' 55. a : 7 τ Η ——— 
ne a ae ena on 2 τ 
πους αν ᾿ς ἀπο ἦν oe κ- — Ξ - 7 ———— 
er - -ἬἮ --. - i: be = —— 
rons a ἈΝᾺ - pra ᾿ om : = Στ ----- --σ 
————) SS πώ Se are et 2 τς <7 - ------------ 
oe!) = SS ee Loam pe —- Te ee - ᾿ τ = — 
—— SS πὸ eee ἐν nan ee - a, - = ——— 
——— -— eT τυρὶ ---. TE SEI Ot Eee = = ed - = ΖΞΞΞΩΞΞ 
a — bg SSS eS SS "τ = - Ξ' = ————— 
———— > Se A “τ Se FF ae ———— a aaa - ~ led -_= 335Ξ-:--Ξ-Ξ 
———— ne ae a ee ad ys SS ooo Ot —_ - -~ SS —— »---------- 
αὐορανεραυ, νον —— = ys ee Re =. a eer — _ ~ o = aot ae ———— 
aver τον ee le Ὡς ΕΟΎ--. ΟἿΟΣ ew te ς- = ~~ 2 —-—— ———— 
πος στα *  — τς et ae es eee a ee i νυ . “- = a = ———— 
pence a OO et ee ee Σ ss = oe SS -.-. “..-.- —— a πὶ :5ΞΞΞ--ΞΞ 
—— τον eee oo oo (= = - i So -.-.-: a — = ἀμ ΕΠ.» πὶ "---- 
a ae = oes SSS SOO SS ΞΞΞ — ᾿ —— --- ποτ Steet ae - νος --.  --55.: --------- 
πασανοῦ —— ee ee = ΞΞΞ- i oS δε. «ἀὸ - a Ξ- : --- 
net = a ee 8 ——SS  :.--- “5: --- ἦν - eee eee 6 θοὸν - .---------- «ἡ»-- ------- -- 
——— ——s a ——— a eo Ss Se SSS SS —————— 
—— = Se Φ ΠΡ > = “7 Fee SS Se SS Σ ΞΞ.- ee ——s 
——ng sr | = “ ae ῶ Sn? 2, Μ΄ “ας αὐ ese SSS ς  Ὁς oo ———— 
——— |: = be ee μὴ re Rat err) ἄνα ἘΞ -ΞΞ σ΄ ἀν - χ δοὺς ----------- 
—— _ nr ne 8 piers = «- = a ΞΞΕΞΞ “ΞΞΞ-. -- 235ΞΞ-.-- - ———-— = ———— 
fo = ————— |* ~~ tens ΤΣ SE — eS -- ΞΞΞ:-.--.- ————————— ν» ---- - -- 
eee «7 = ᾿ς Ὡπ =: — 72 Stee Bol = 
ne ~ CS - = : ———— --- “τ = ————— πιστὴ os ——— 
re See bee. ———— Ss Ss 1 τ ΞΞ Ξ ΞΕ Ξ-- ΞΞ τ δΝ-.......-:::.5 ρ----- 
——— a = SS .--..-.- το ΩΝ Lane He's ΕΞ Oe” a .««ἀὐσπαοσθ τ τ ο- ----- 
ee ὅδ SS eee ee ee τς = nee ἡ τα σ -- 2) —— i - ——————— 
oer ma ΞΞΞΙΞ  -:.:.- " — - % 8 tS! ee OSS OSE SS ia es Ol --------- 
oe τς a Ρ -τ δ τι πν---- 2 SS 75. :1:...:------ τ Ὅσο >I: ΞΞ.-:. ΞΞ-Ξ--.-- ——— 
——— SS FS ee <= τ — ——— ee ee Ta αν ριον ----- ςσο ποὺ τ. Ξ : ζΖΞΞ.. eS ——— 
————— = ——— += > Se SS TEESE Ss —— 
ee ==  ν-::Ξ  ΣΕΞΞ 7 ς So a}: ed ———— 
—— ace SS eee ee ew -- - = ———" oOo eee ΘΟ -- ee 
cmaperneesent nD == ee sO. eS: = lola i le :::-- —— 
———— = - :- ΞΞΘΕΞΞ: --:: v4 ———- — πὰ --Ξς--- νι — 
——— Sees et 4 nS SS SS a  " 35ΞΞΞ-- 
—— er ——— δ -Σ---- τ -ο Δ ———— 
aoc tm = ας —— Are oo ---- 7) τ ,δαι. συ στ τ ——— 
——— SS emcee fi eee pomeneree aa ae ~ oOo OOOO 8 eS a SO ———— 
, πον a — ᾿ nt 
re -ΞΞ:. SSS at at — <9 a ———— ——— 
ne SS τα a eee Oe δος αν, SSO 2, / ee SSS  σα-- 1 ——— 
q 4 ~~ ΞΞ:-..--ττ a 
——_- = = ee 724. rr StS γα — ee Ὁ —— = ———— 
——_ > παν τ. 55 δ —— > a/ - - ee OO —— π΄ ϑυθο 1 μ- 
ee oe Sis ᾿ <2 > : ὩΣ ΞΘ - - ee τ 35ΞΞ-.-- 
an i “, t+ - τ ἘΞ ———oooooree—— SSS Oe a ————— 
aerate με ΠΣ oe PS . ie = oe a = —eS ee ee ———— 
——— =, Se aes al aceite, -- Sl eee Pe ᾿.......δὉ Οὐ πον »----------ααὶ 
--ὐὐὐΘ ονοδὰ a ἀξ. το" Ὁ —— νς — ——— a OS ἀφ» “καὶ σ’ eae: |S = we 
“.“..-----, ᾿»- “τ ak Ata Ie LIS ant 0 SE τ Ὁ ων σι " ---π'' ———— ““-ἴ ,--».-- 
——. ἀππος i <4) Ve ΣΖΣΩ͂Ζ δ Ξ τ = - Aa Ln ———— 
— - On. olor a = —— = _—— ad > — ————- 
ed LS 7 = eed a  5--.-::: 5 ΞξΞ :Ξ τσ ———— 
————— Πππρ <b 7 ᾿ τοῦ τα πο τ ed - es 
—— σν το LL ig PAL 22 SS ooo sa es ὡΞΞΞΞΞ :: -Ξ3ΞΞΞ ——— 
———— πρὸ Se PLT she > 1 as aS oS Se ———— 
ne οι mn I atl fs = - ΤΩΣ -:.----1-.-------- ας ταν το οὐ ξΞαπασον -- πτασον. ————— 
aes ae rad Spy ae = _* ace SSS ,ΞΞΞΞΞ es 
ee eo 6.7, σὴ Οὐ ΟΞ ΝΣ Ξ a ys 
eo ee ae ΠΕ τὸν - oS SS mn ————— 
eames seen —————— ed = ee tenn ‘ x.  —— -; »--------- 
———— αν ᾿ ΖΞΞΣΞΞ:. eran eo ὩΣ = - a —— 
i σον ooo τ π΄ -τ τ = 2 od ———— 
——— eo occ tm ον oe — τ ———————————— ——————— 
ee 5 γα - oe — meres tre SS a . - ————— 
———— ὁ πἰ-- a τς : - i —————————— τπτα-- 35ΞΞ--- 
See nae ἐὰν μα . SS ——— 
——— oer oe _ —— od —— 
eh τον eee —e ταν ea —— 
ae a 1. νυ αστσσσττ τσ τ τς — τι» νον —— 
ee = = “: Leet  “ 
ee, πὸ: Στ ἜΣΞΙ.  “-Ὁ ---  Ὅ Π- -- — = ——————— 
ca ern ena ——————————— τ τ’-ποπ.. τας σσοστοσο = : Sa τς Ξ - _———— 
monn «νι eee = τ "ππλοο a soe τ 
a eer Sooo a « = = es 
cece So mere oe yd τόσος 1 - “= _——— 
a. oe ἘΞ ἘΞ Ξ---π- -οοΕοὥῳὃὅς- τ Π ππΠ λτττς- es oa. ee ν 2 aoe ——— 
Ta αν See eee irs a Sta om ὅδ. - Frere ———— 
Scepter See eee ——— τ πὰ Σ -- A = ——— 
<n rn ΙΣΤ πο -- τ τ ΠΤ 2 eh ee seers -- π-- ας 
——<—<—< τος ——— rr rn Se) we —— - - -- πο 
------αύθν. ἀαϑ ee ee ἘΣ ae ee “τῶι 3 ᾿ ----- 
en eS. Ὁ =a 5 ——— 
en eae en ον eee —— ἂν So ΄ > ——— 
ee ae SSS OO Sere π᾿ "> ee ooo ———— 
Se SS SSeS and. =< ———— 
SS De ore τ0 0 τ ae SS ann oe = o> 4 = ἣν--------- 
SS ποτ α-. -.--------- τ -- “τ ane ae ieroneNoed Say Ser = Js =e = _———— 
——— | SSeS = sx rare eo 7 = ———— 
amen eras a — ΞΟ ΕΣ se s = ---- --- 
SS eee eee ae πὰ τες - = —— 
a eS τσ τ ΠΤ oo ee Satis = —— = ————— 
————— oS eae eee a — Pe, ἧς τς .--------- 
Se Eee σας Ca = βκὴ - ks = ΞΞΞΞ - -- 
nr ee err ee σα τεσ πο σατο ee =. = Ao “ἀρ Αἱ ᾿ τ "»-------- 
rare να ον Οὐ ee Se = Be C —————— 
Soars τὴν hater same Smee)” ees . - αὐ σατο ποτ τὶ _ = — ad ———— 
ceceaeeases ame eames om Pe SS. ere συν ο πισ σις πον > ————— 
ne ren ον ταν SS. Ss πο τὸ τ ραν = ἐν ne 
an ene ae sommes ας Ss SS Se = ee ——— 
ee ae ee NI SS ere = a = —— 
a ea tawe) san SY a eager == : wae S gee —————— 
a SS [J a 5 So - ΖΞ 33ΞΞ5ΞΞ-Ξ 
ων το see SSS τὸς SS MES ΞΟΣΣ --  Ξ a — oe 
eS en aes eens NY ae νος πὰρ τε ως τς τ τ ae μ᾽." okay mom ree ᾿ ᾿ -_———— 
aes eS ee a nS νῆα... ee canene τ πω — <= ee ---- 
SS eee oe ST με-σααν Sern = ————————— 2 ᾿ς ΖΞΞΞ---- 
ee τον -- τ τον en A OS ee ςς neers vere a ae a nd = ---- 
aaa: eee emma ENT cee a onan Ce = ——— 
eel Se ee i) SS ae ane sm = ee So πο ———— 
ee ay em ον ἊΣ le nD ee NL ee oo ————— oe ————— 
Ne Ganson αν.» a ST ποσιυσσασνσονς τς 6 ee eo ° rd a —————— 
SS a ae ipa Tg ae =< re ως κι τανε rene πος age: a τσ τ αι. σον 
ee πο Segoe ti aes ἐταυσας, - σοῖς OF ———— ee tren ee a = SS τ. 335ΞΞΞ--: 
ire σῶν een ee een ee a are eee = ee  ὰ “- αὐτο Ὁ -Ὡ-- 
πο Στ πο ΩΝ eee ee aan oe τον σττας-- Se τος Ὡς ——————— 
rN ape σὰ LSS σόν τσ σα ? = Ξε ,33Ξ-.-- --Ξ: “-ῷ τ: ποτα 
gle ls ends coon woe seen, Soren” ac ere ne 3 SS Σ, 1 ΞΞΞΞΞΕΞ.Ξ::3::-Ξ ἀν νος------------- 
rr eae σὸς στ στ Steger πὶ δες ee ΠΣ ΣΣ SS = ——— aS SS SS  - 
ΣΞΞΞΞΣ ΞΟ εν στ ee, eee eee we ns eee .—————— = —— SS SS = πῶ. 
-σππ γόνα αν ee en ee 2 ane αν ΟΡ] eee —— ΞΞ ἝΝ 1 - Σ 1335Ξ:3:-: 
ee eed Ne σσ στο τ σατο στὸ στ, τὸ πὶ ene at a ς΄ ΘΟ ΣΟ ΣΤ 
rer cna αν τ" τσ τοὶ Sas cance ἔων. Ξ τς. ------" = eee ——— ee τν 
apenas caren g amenenrae “fyi enmenannes a Ee, —--— = — eee 
RN en cine 2. ar τον menmaneene Sper σπου πον | ae ——o= = ne i “πο τ 
pane aes ——————- --ὦ- i ΞΞΞΞΞΙΞΞΙΞ: er τς a 
<a Oe tes caer a ο να, oe oe. ee 
7, ΠῚ wie ; oS >> eee SO τσ -- --- 
a = a - ee - ΗΝ σον 
-----5 So re ree ear — — -ππασαπασν ἀκόμα" πασσναν a 
σι Lr mn -- A AE ASS SNS — 
pore — Oe — τονν LS 
aneateiene i --ὦ Ve ———— —_— ee ee ea 
SEER = a gn ne να οε΄ πο - 
- τὰν ὡςὩ. ὧν--- στον οοοὁοὕἜὅἕζρι τ 
5 Ὁ----«ςἀἀἰταῳ΄ στ ασδ' - 


' ir | 
Ἢ 


ἰ 
ae 


ἢ 
| | 
i Mi ἢ ἬΕΙ 
ait 


| 
5 at 
ἡ HU 


Hartt ; 
the ἀπ τὴΠ 
piped 
ΠΝ: 
Η ξ Ἢ ν 
Ἢ aie ΐ 
ΝΉΜΗ ! ΒΝ 
ΠΡΊΝ ΗΝ ἦ 
' reeled bee 
' ' i Ny iH 
ὁ}; A 
' ‘ ὁ / : 
y 
} | . 
' 


